LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

Theo 

logical   Seminary, 

' 

PRINCETON,    N.J. 

Case,,__ 
Shelf, 

Divisi. 

Section \ 

Book, 

No 

777f4r%^'''^^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tineological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.archive.org/details/bibledoctrineofgOOkink 


THE 

OF 

GOD,  JESUS  CHRIST,  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

ATONEMENT,  FAITH,  AND  ELECTION: 

to  WHICH  IS  PREFIXED 

S0]SrE  THOUGHTS  ON  NATURAL  THEOLOGY 


TRUTH  OF  REVEZiATZON: 


BY  WILLIAM  KIXKADE, 

A  rompauion  of  all  them  that  fear  God,  and  keep  his  Cornmandm^n'- 


H.  R.  Piercy,  Printer,  265  Eoimh/. 

is-:9. 


Southern  Disirict  of  Xew-Yoyk,  ss  : 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  Iwenly-sjxtli  Jay  of  June,  A.  D. 
1829,  in  the  fifty-third  yt-ar  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  ot* 
Amtrica,  William  Kiukade,  of  the  said  district,  hath  deposited  in  this  offics 
the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  author  in  the  words  fol- 
?Gwine,  to  wit : 

"The  Bible  Doctrine  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit,  Atonement. 
Faith,  and  Election  :  to  which  is  prefixed  some  thoughts  on  Natural  The- 
ology, and  the  Truth  of  Revelation.  By  William  Kinkade,  Companion  of 
all  them  that  fear  God,  and  keep  his  Commandments  " 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "  An  act 
fbr  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books,  to  the  siuthors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  time? 
therein  mentioned,"  and  also,  to  an  act, entitled,  "An  act  supplementary  to 
an  act,  entitled,  an  act  for  the  i-ncouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such 
copies,  during  the  time  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof 
Jo  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etcliing  historical  and  other  prints  '" 

FRED.  J.  BETTS.' 
ClerlJ  of  the  Southern  District  of  New- York- 
-■-Yew- York,  June  30,  1S29. 


PREFACE 


To  THE  Reader, 

The  reader  may  wish  to  know  how  I  got  in  posse^j- 
sion  of  my  present  views  of  reUgion.  I  was  born  ir^ 
what  was  then  called  the  back- woods,  in  western  PensyU 
vania.  BIy  parents  moved  to  Kentucky,  when  I  vva? 
not  more  than  three,  or  four  years  old.  I  received  my 
first  ideas  of  religion,  from  my  mother,  and  I  have  no 
doubt  but  that  her  prayers  and  instructions,  were  the 
principle  means  which  made  me  a  christian. 

She  told  me  there  was  a  God  and  a  devil,  a  heaven 
and  a  hell,  and  I  believed  her.    She  taught  me  the  differ- 
ence between  righteousness  and  sin,  told  me  that  a 
virtuous  life  would  secure  the  favor  of  God,  and  that 
a  vicious  course  would  not  fail  to  draw  on  me  his  fier 
est  displeasure.  She  learnt  me  the  Mother's  Catecb" 
and  taught  me  that  unless  I  would  pray  to  God,  T  - 
not  be  righteous  in  his  sight.     A  belief  of  the& 
made  me  religious,  and  when  I  was  not  more  thv 
years  old,  I  frequently  went  into  the  woods,  or  son. 
other  secret  place,  and  kneeled  by  myself  in  prayer 
God,  when  at  the  same  time  I  did  not  know  that  anj 
other  person  ever  did  so,  for  although  my  mother  had 
taught  me  to  say  my  prayers,  when  I  went  to  bed  at 
night,  and  when  I  got  up  in  the  morning,  she  had  never 
told  me  to  go  into  secret,  and  pray  by  myself.     I  wa?- 
raised  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  still  think  the} 


IV  PREFACE. 

are  the  best  religious  sect  I  know,  except  the  Quakels  : 
and  in  some  respects,  they  excel  them.  I  learned  the 
Presbyterian  Catechisms,  but  never  believed  near  all 
of  them. 

The  Bible  was  my  school-book,  and  I  still  think  it  is 
the  best  school-book  in  the  world.  In  learning  my  les- 
sons in  the  New  Testament,  I  took  up  the  idea  that 
God  was  the  greatest,  and  oldest  person  in  existence, 
and  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  next  greatest ;  but  I  was 
just  as  far  from  thinking  that  he  was  as  old,  or  as  great 
as  his  Father,  as  I  was  from  thinking  that  I  was  as  old,, 
or  as  great  as  my  father. 

I  was  under  conviction  for  sin,  almost  all  my  life,  and 
spent  my  days  in  sinning  and  repenting,  till  the  great 
revival  took  place  in  the  Piesbyterian  Church  in  1800, 
and  1801,  when  I  was  brought  under  still  deeper  con- 
viction for  my  sins,  and  my  trouble  of  mind  increased 
till  the  26th,  day  of  September  1802,  and  then  at  a  large 
camp-raeeting,  God  converted  my  soul ;  he  removed 
the  burden  of  guilt  from  my  mind,  shed  abroad  his  love 
in  my  heart,  and  filled  me  with  joy  unspeakable  and 
full  of  glory. 

I  then  refused  to  call  myself  by  any  name  but  that 

of  Christiany  bore  a  public  testimony  against  all  party 

names,  and  declared  that  I  would  take  no  other  book 

.i  my  standard  but  the  Bible.    I  did  not  then  know  that 

J  other  per.son  would  unite  with  me  to  have  no  name 
but  Christiany  and  take  no  standard  but  the  Bible,  but 
I  thought  it  was  right,  and  therefore  determined  to  pur- 
sue it,  let  the  consequmce  be  what  it  might.  1  could 
have  been  a  Baptist,  a  Methodist,  >r  a  Presbyterian 
preacher.  The  two  latter  sects  both  strongly  solicited 
me  to  be  a  preacher  among  them,  but  I  utterly  refused, 
bQcause  I  thought  it  would  be  better  for  me  to  go  alone 


PEEFACE.  V 

on  the  word  of  God,  than  to  put  myself  under  obhgation 
to  beUeve,  and  preach  any  system  that  could  be  framed 
by  fallible  men.  About  that  time  the  Presbytery  where 
I  lived,  licensed  near  thirty  preachers,  that  had  not  a 
liberal  education,  but  this  has  since  caused  a  division 
among  them,  and  given  rise  to  a  new  sect,  who  call 
themselves  Cumberland  Presbyterians. 

I  have  since  ascertained  that  in  different  parts  of 
America,  there  were  hundreds  who  started  about  the 
same  time  that  I  did,  and  although  they  were  generally 
unknown  to  each  other,  they  took  the  same  ground,  and 
were  actuated  by  the  same  Spirit.  According  to  the 
best  of  my  recollection  it  was  about  three  years  after  1 
took  this  stand  before  I  heard  of  Marshall,  Thompson, 
Stone,  or  any  other  member  of  the  Springfield  Pres-^ 
bytery. 

I  was  raise.d  on  the  frontiers  of  Kentucky,  in  the  midst 
of  the  Indian  war,  where  men  were  only  respected  in 
proportion  to  their  valor  and  skill  in  fighting  Indians, 
and  killing  wild  beasts  ;  and  I  verily  thought  that  to  be 
a  brave  skilful  warrior:  and  a  good  hunter  was  the 
greatest  honor  to  which  any  man  could  attain. 

When  I  got  religion  I  had  but  httle  learning,  I  could 
barely  read  and  write,  and  that  but  very  indifferently. 
I  then  thought,  and  yet  think,  that  God  then  called  me 
by  his  Holy  Spirit  to  preach  the  Gospel. 

On  this  occasion  I  had  to  make  a  great  sacrifice.  I 
laid  aside  my  leather  hunting-shirt,  my  rifle-gun,  and 
butcher-knife,  and  left  my  father's  house  and  my  beloved 
woods  to  travel  and  preach  the  Gospel.  But  before 
I  started  to  preach,  I  thought  it  was  necessary  to  buy  a 
bible,  and  as  I  had  no  money,  I  agreed  to  work  to  a 
Presbyterian  man  for  one.  He  let  me  have  it  for  five 
^ays  work,  and  although  I  had  to  grub  bushes  in  a  brier 
1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

patch,  I  think  it  was  the  best  bargain  I  ever  made  ;  1 
have  it  yet.  It  is  a  httle  pocket  bible  without  note,  com- 
ment, or  marginal  reference.  By  reading  it,  I  formed 
my  present  views  of  religion,  which  I  committed  to 
writing  in  all  their  essential  points,  without  the  assist- 
ance of  commentators,  and  before  I  had  seen  a  concor- 
dance, nor  had  I  at  that  time  ever  read  a  word  from  the 
pen  of  a  Unitarian.  After  I  had  preached  a  while  I  went 
to  school  to  Doctor  Stubs,  who  taught  an  academy  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Newport,  Kentucky :  there  I  got 
some  more  learning.  Boarding  and  schooling  were 
both  very  high,  and  I  paid  my  way  by  working  day's 
works. 

Although  I  have  been  a  scholar  in  several  schools, 
have  travelled  and  preached  more  than  twenty  years, 
read  several  books,  conversed  with  many  men  famed 
for  wisdom,  had  many  private  and  pubHc  disputes  on 
various  doctrines  of  religion  ;  still  all  I  have  learned  has 
only  confirmed  me  in  the  great  and  leading  truths  of 
religion,  which  I  first  learned  by  reading  the  little  bible 
that  I  earned  by  grubbing  in  a  brier  patch.     I  now  feel 
thankful  to  God  that  the  independence  of  mind  which 
grew  up  with  me  in  my  native  woods  has  never  forsaken 
Tiie.     I  have  at  all  times  dared  to  oppose  any  thing  that 
I  did  not  think  was  right.     Although  this  course  has 
ilways  created  me  enemies,  and  rendered  me  unpopular, 
ill  I  glory  in  it,  because  I  think  it  is  the  course  pursu- 
ed by  the  ancient  prophets,  and  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
I  disown  all  party  names.    I  do  not  profess  to  belong 
■to  any  sect  of  Christians.     I  fellow  hip  all  good  people 
01  every  name  without  "?gar^  lo  how  much  they  may 
differ  froT*  me  in  cl:)C*  >    ,      1  have  written  this  book 
as  the  senti  >ct,  nor  denomination  of  peo- 

ple.   It  is  a  s^'c    ..  v*  my  own  views.    If  you  are  a 


PREFACE.  yu 

Christian,  or  a  sincere  seeker  of  religion,  I  remain  youi 
brother,  in  the  patience,  tribulation,  and  hope  of  the 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ. 

WILLIAM  KINKADE, 
Ji  Stranger,  and  Pilgrim  on  Earth, 
May  God  guide  us  into  all  necessary  truth. 

J\m'-YorJc,  Julij  1,  1829. 


■9*, 


PART  I. 


THOUGHTS   ON  WHAT   HAS  BEEN  CALLED  NATURAL   THEOLOGT. 

There  is  not  one  inch  of  rational  ground  between 
Christianity  and  Atheism.  Independently  of  the  Bible, 
or  some  supernatural  revelation,  we  could  never  ascer- 
tain the  existence  of  God. 

Many  christians  contend  that  the  existence  of  God 
may  be  learnt  from  the  works  of  nature,  but  I  believe 
they  all  confess  that  they  cannot  teach  any  correct 
knowledge  of  his  attributes.  Then  I  contend  that  if 
nature  can  give  us  no  certain  knowledge  of  his  attri- 
butes, she  can  give  us  no  assurance  of  his  present  ex- 
istence, because  if  she  cannot  assure  us  that  he  pos- 
sesses the  attribute  of  immortality,  she  cannot  assure 
us  that  he  now  lives.  We  never  could  ascertain  from 
the  works  of  nature  that  God  is  immortal ;  but  on  the 
contrary,  reasoning  from  effect  to  cause,  and  seeing  all 
his  works  perishable,  we  shbuld  naturally  be  led  to  think 
that  the  author  would  also  die,  because  it  is  a  maxmi  in 
the  laws  of  nature,  that  like  produces  like  ;  and  if  God 
is  like  the  things  he  has  produced,  he  must  be  mortal  ; 
therefore,  for  any  thing  that  nature  teaches  to  the  con- 
trary, he  may  have  died  long  ago.  The  great  regular- 
ity with  which  nature  seems  to  move,  is  no  proof  that 
its  author  still  Uves  ;  he  might  have  created  the  machine 
so  perfect,  that  it  would  run  several  thousand  years 
without  his  interference.  If  a  man  can  make  a  clock, 
that  will  run  eight  days  without  being  wound  np,  its 
fanning  the  eighth  day,  is  no  proof  that  the  man,  who 


U  NATURAL  THEOLOGV. 

made  it,  is  still  living.  It  is  well  kno\vn  that  a  persoii^- 
who  could  not  make  a  clock,  could  keep  one  in  opera- 
Hon  fifty  years  after  the  one  that  made  it  was  dead. — 
Just  so,  for  all  that  nature  can  teach  to  the  contrary, 
the  Creator  may  have  died  thousands  of  years  since, 
and  the  system  of  nature  may  now  be  proceeding  of  its 
own  accord,  or  else  carried  on  by  iiilerior  agents,  that 
have  succeeded  him  in  the  government  of  the  Universe. 
But  even  if  we  should  admit  that  the  regularity  with 
which  nature  moves,  is  a  proof  of  God's  present  exis- 
tence, it  can  be  no  proof  that  he  will  continue  to  exist; 
).hat  my  lungs  uiove,  and  my  blood  circulates  to-day,  is 
iio  proof  that  they  will  to-morrow  ;  so  we  may  say  of 
God,  for  all  that  nature  teaches  to  the  contrary,  he  may 
die  to-morrow.  If  we  reason  from  nature,  his  great 
age,  instead  of  proving  that  he  will  never  die,  would 
rather  go  to  prove  that  he  must  soon  die,  because  every 
living  being  that  we  see  under  the  dominion  of  nature, 
sinks  into  death  under  the  weight  of  time. 

We  cannot  tell  by  the  study  of  nature,  how  long  the 
world  has  stood  ;  if  nature  cannot  tell  us  when  she  was 
made,  how  can  she  inform  us  who  made  her  1  Al- 
though we  cannot  tell  precisely  the  age  of  a  machine  by 
looking  at  it,  we  can  tell  whether  it  is  new  or  old,  but 
we  never  can,  by  looking  at  it,  find  out  >vho  made  it« 

The  study  of  nature  does  not,  nor  cannot  teach  us^ 
*hat  God  is  unchangable  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  reason- 
ing  from  effect  to  cause,  and  seeing  all  his  works  muta- 
hle,  v.-e  are  more  naturally  led  to  think,  that  he  himseli 
>3  also  subject  to  change.  If  the  works  of  nature  can* 
not  assure  us  that  God  possesses  the  attribute  of  im- 
mutability, we  cannot  by  nature  be  sure,  that  he  exists  : 
because  every  mutable  being  may  die,  or  be  essential* 
\y  changed. 

If  we  should  admit  that  our  Creator  exists,  and  tha* 
lie  is  wise  and  merciful,  still,  if  we  have  no  assurance 
that  he  is  immutable,  there  can  be  no  certainty  that  he 
will  exist  in  future,  or  that  if  he  should,  he  will  then  be 
wise  and  merciful. 

That  man,  without  revelation,  could  form  no  correct 
(leas  of  the  Oivine  attributes,  is  clearly  proved  by  the 
jKiathen.     Although  they  had  somo  knowledge  of  Go^\ 


:jfATURAL   THEOLOGY.  11 

by  tradition  from  their  ancestors,  yet  being  destitute  oi" 
the  scriptures,  they  could  form  no  very  correct  ideas  of 
his  attributes  ;  hence  they  always  have,  and  still  do,  as- 
cribe to  their  Gods  the  most  malignant  passions,  and 
abominable  conduct.  As  it  is  certain  that  we  cannot^ 
by  nature  obtain  any  certain  knowledge  of  God's  attri- 
butes, so  it  is  equally  certain  that  we  cannot  prove  from 
nature,  that  he  noiv  exists.  ^ 

Romans  i.  20.  has  been  quoted  to  prove  that  a  >\ 
linowledge  of  God  may  be  derived  from  the  works  ol 
creation.  "  For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  the 
creation  of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood 
by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and 
God-head."  It  is  hardly  probable  that  Paul  intended 
to  hold  out  the  idea,  that  the  people  of  whom  he  then 
spake,  had  received  their  first  knowledge  of  God  from 
the  works  of  nature,  because  he  must  have  known  that 
they  received  it  from  their  parents  ;  of  course  he  only 
intended  to  hold  out  the  idea,  that  to  people,  who  knew 
that  God  made  the  world,  creation  is  a  great  display  ot 
his  eternal  power  and  God-head.  If  they  got  their  first 
ideas  of  God  by  viewing  creation,  they  could  not  have 
lost  these  ideas  while  they  kept  it  in  view.  If  all  my 
knowledge  of  an  artist  is  derived  from  viewing  his  works, 
I  cannot  lose  that  knowledge  while  I  continue  to  be> 
hold  those  works.  If  the  knowledge  of  God  flows  from 
the  works  of  nature,  as  a  stream  from  a  fountain,  the 
stream  cannot  diy  up  while  the  fountain  continues  the 
same.  But  the  apostle  informs  us,  that  those  people 
did  lose  the  knowledge  of  God ;  that  they  became 
vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  that  their  foolish  hearts 
were  darkened,  and  that  as  they  did  not  like  to  retain 
God  in  their  knowledge.  He  gave  them  over  to  a  re- 
probate mind.  The  following  text  shows  that  Paul  did 
not  think  that  men,  by  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  could 
know  God.  "  For  after  that  in  the  wisdom  of  God, 
the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by 
the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  be- 
Jieve."  I  Cor.  i.  21.  Although  it  is  self  evident  thai 
there  can  be  but  one  supreme  being,  yet  to  me,  if  I  was  '  -j  ^ 
unaided  by  scripture,  it  would  appear  just  as  reasona-  ' 
ble  to  suppose  there  are  a  thousand  miUion  of  Qods,  as 


12  JfATUBAL   THEOLOGY. 

that  there  Is  but  one.  Those  nations,  that  are  the  far- 
thest removed  from  the  hght  of  Revelation,  are  the  most 
apt  to  worship  a  multipUcity  of  Gods.  Reasoning  from 
effect  to  cause,  they  conclude  that  the  same  being  cannot 
be  the  author  of  so  many  things  opposite  in  their  nature 
to  each  other  ;  hence  they  ascribe  each  of  the  different 
elements,  species  of  animals,  vegetables,  &c.  to  a  dif-^ 
ferent  God. 

If  the  book  of  nature  could  teach  the  knowledge  of 
God  correctly,  then  all  the  heathen,  drawing  their 
knowledge  from  the  same  source,  would  think  of  him 
alike,  and  would  all  believe  in  but  one  God.  But  we 
find  they  are  all  polytheists,  and  differ  widely  relative  to 
the  number,  and  attributes  of  their  Gods.  This  diver- 
sity has,  no  doubt,  obtained  among  them  by  corruption 
of  the  knowledge,  handed  down  from  their  ancestors. 

We  have  no  account  that  any  nation,  having  lost  the 
knowledge  of  the  trne  God,  ever  recovered  it  without 
the  aid  of  Revelation  :  therefore,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  nature  has  ever  taught  her  children  the  knowledge 
of  God. 

By  the  powers  of  nature  we  can  think  of  nothing  but 
what  has  submitted  to  one,  or  more  of  our  exter- 
nal senses.  It  is  true  we  may  form  in  our  minds  an 
image,  the  precise  archetype  of  which  we  have  never 
seen  ;  we  may  suppose  an  animal  with  the  head  of  a 
man,  the  wings  of  a  fowl,  the  body  of  a  fish,  and  the 
feet  of  a  beast ;  but  although  we  have  never  seen  such 
a  creature,  we  have  seen  those  ofwhich  it  is  compound- 
ed. But  it  is  a^  impossible  for  us,  by  our  natural  pow- 
ers, to  conceive  an  idea  independently  of  our  bodily 
senses,  as  it  is  to  create  a  principle  in  the  Mathema- 
tics. I  therefore  conclude,  that  if  we  had  not  heard 
of,  nor  seen  God,  we  never  could  have  formed  an  idea 
of  his  existence.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  opin- 
ion of  Paul.  He  says,  "  Faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  word  of  God."  Rom.  x.  17.  Nature 
has  not  a  spark  of  spiritual  light  in  her,  nor  did  she  ever 
tell  any  person  that  there  is  a  God. 

I  have  never  talked  with  a  person,  who  would  testify 
that  his  first  ideas  of  God  were  formed  from  the  study 
of  nature  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  I  have  uniformly  found 


NATURAL   THEOLOGV.  iS 

that  mankind,  whether  savage  or  civilized,  receive  their 
first  ideas  of  the  Deity  from  their  ancestors.     If  a  man 
m  possession  of  all  the  senses  of  mature  age,  who  had 
never  seen  nor  heard  of  a  creature  like  himself,  should, 
in  five  minutes  after  he  got  his  existence,  see  a  water- 
mill,  he  would  be  as  unable  to  account  for  it,  as  he 
would  be  to  account  for  the  stream  that  propelled  it : 
but  after  he  would  get  acquainted  with  men,  and  learn 
trom  them  that  a  certain  man  made  the  mill,  that  infor- 
mation would  enable  him  to  discover  in  the  machine, 
the  skill  of  the  artist.     Just  so,  after  we  are   informed 
by  Revelation  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he  made 
the  worlds,  that  information  gives  the  works  of  nature 
a  voice  to  display  to  us  the  wisdom  of  the  Creator ;  and 
every  trace  of  intelligence,  we  discover  in  the  mechan- 
ism of  nature,  is  a  corroborating  proof  of  his  wisdom. — 
If  a  man,  who  had   never  seen  nor  heard  of  a  book, 
ahould  find  the  history  of  the  Arabs  containing  the  Al- 
^joran,  written  in  Arabic,  it  would  not  inform  him  that 
there  was  such  a  man  as  Mahomet,  or  that  there  is 
such  a  nation  as  the  Arabs.     And  if  he  should  keep  it 
his  life  time,  and  never  meet  with  a  person  who  had  seen 
any  other  book  except  it,  and  never  conie  in  contact  with 
a  person  who  had  seen  or  heard  of  Mahomet,  or  of 
the  Arabs,  and  should  never  see  nor  hear  them  himself, 
lie  would  die,  not  only  without  the  knowledge  of  their 
religion  and  laws,   but  also  without  the  knowledge   of 
their  existence.     So  we  may  have  the  volume  of  nature 
before  us  till  we  die,  and  unless  the  author  should  re- 
veal himself   to  us  directly,   or  through   prophets,   it 
could  never  teach  us  his  existence,  much  less  his  attri- 
butes and  laws.     If  the   man,  who  found   this  book, 
should  meet  with  an  Arabian  who  would  teach  him  to 
read  Arabic  perfectly,  then  that  knowledge  would  en- 
able him  to  learn  from  the  book,  the  existence,   reli- 
gion, laws,  and  customs  of  those  people.     Just  so,  af- 
ter God  had  revealed  himself  to  us  by  the  prophets,  and 
informed  us  that  he  made  all  things,  then  through  that 
mformation,  "The  heavens  declare  the  glory  ofGod^, 
and  the  firaiament  showeth  his  handy  work." 

It  is  true  that  the  heathen,  without  the  written  word, 
have  some  ideas  of  God,  but  no  doubt  all  their  correct 

2 


14  >rATXniAL    THEOLOGTi 

ideas  of  him  are  either  traditions  handed  down  fiom 
their  father  Noah,  who  was  a  prophet,  and  a  preacher  of 
righteousness,  or  else  information  received  from  Jews. 
or  Christians. 

I  will  now  illustrate  the  subject  by  a  simple  compari- 
son. Suppose  I  should  find  a  machine  of  the  most 
complicated  and  exquisite  workmanship,  made  by  a  man 
whom  I  had  never  seen,  nor  heard,  nor  thought  of: 
surely,  that  machine  could  never  inform  me  what  par- 
ticular man  made  it.  It  might  have  been  made  by  a 
Spaniard,  of  a  certain  age,  size,  and  complexion,  Hving 
in  a  cottage  in  old  Spain,  but  the  machine  could  never 
inform  me  that  such  a  Spaniard  exists  ;  it  could  give 
me  no  more  information  of  him,  than  could  a  machine, 
he  never  saw,  because  I  would  not  know  that  a  Span- 
iard made  it ;  and  if  I  were  as  ignorant  of  all  human 
beings  as  I  am  of  him,  the  machine  could  not  teach  me 
that  any  humans  exist.  If  I  should  view  the  said  ma- 
chine ten  years,  it  would  not  suggest  to  me  the  idea 
that  any  Hottentot  is  a  good  mechanic,  but  if  it  was 
proved  to  me  that  a  Hottentot  made  it,  then  through 
that  testimony  I  could  discover  in  the  workmanship  ev- 
idence to  convince  me,  that  there  is,  at  least,  one  skill- 
ful Hottentot.  Just  so  I  think  of  the  material  universe; 
it  has  no  tongue  to  inform  us  of  its  Creator  ;  but  after 
we  are  informed  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he  made 
the  worlds,  that  Revelation  gives  them  a  voice  to  dis- 
play to  us  his  wisdom  and  power. 

Although  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  contrary  to 
reason,  yet  its  truths  never  could  have  been  discovered 
by  reason,  because  men  cannot  reason  without  some- 
thing to  reason  on  :  the  best  mechanic  cannot  construct 
a  machine  without  materials  ;  the  blind  man,  who  never 
saw,  cannot  reason  on  colors,  nor  can  the  deaf  man, 
who  never  heard,  reason  on  sounds.  Just  so  I  think  of 
those,  who  never  heard  of  God  by  Revelation,  they 
could  reason  nothing  about  him. 

The  reason  why  nature  cannot  impart  to  us  thfc 
knowledge  of  God  is,  because  she  does  not  possess  it 
herself  Neither  the  earth,  the  water,  nor  the  air,  knows 
God  ;  they  know  nothing.  How  then  can  they  com- 
municate to  us  the  most  sublime  of  all  knowledge  ? 


'tsatural  theology.  15 

To  say  that  a  monkey  can  teach  astronomy,  would  be 
less  absurd  than  to  say,  that  dead  matter  can  teach  the 
knowledge  of  God,  because  a  monkey  evinces  more 
sio-ns  of  inteUigence  than  do  rocks  and  trees. 

But  it  will  be  asked  if  we  may  not  receive  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  by  internal  illumination,  independently  of 
the  bodily  senses.  To  this  I  answer  yes,  but  at  the 
same  time  it  should  be  remembered, that  knowledg-ethus 
received,  is  not  acquired  by  contemplating  the  works  of 
nature,  it  is  a  direct  Revelation,  given  by  an  act  of 
God. 

If  I  should  find  in  a  ship  twenty  different  kinds  of 
plants,  and  twenty  different  machines,  all  very  unUke 
any  thing  I  ever  saw  before,  it  would  not  teach  me  that 
this  earth  is  a  hollov/  sphere,  inhabited  in  the  interior 
by  human  beings,  ikit'if  the  ship's  crew  would  inform 
me  that  these  are  facts,  that  they  had  been  in  that  coun- 
try, conversed  with  the  inhabitants,  and  brought  out  of 
it  those  plants  and  machines  as  specimens  of  its 
growth  and  maiuiiactures,  then  that  information  would 
not  only  teach  me  the  existence  of  such  a  place,  but  it 
would  enable  nie  to  form,  by  examining  the  plants  and 
machinery,  some  ideas  of  its  soil  and  inhabitants.  Just 
so,  the  works  of  nature  could  not  teach  me  the  being  of 
God,  nor  a  future  existence  beyond  this  life,  but  when 
the  prophets  taught  me  these  things,  that  information 
enabled  me  to  learn  by  the  study  of  nature  something 
of  his  wisdom  and  power. 

If  we  knew  that  God  and  the  Devil  both  exist,  that 
the  one  is  the  best,  and  the  other  the  worst  being  in  the 
imiverse,  but  at  the  same  time  we  had  never  been  in- 
formed which  of  the  two  is  the  greater,  nor  which  of  them 
made  the  world, we  never  co'ild  by  the  study  of  nature  de- 
termine either  of  these  difRc  ilties.  It  is  well  known  that 
many  of  the  ancient  philosophers, and  also  the  Manichees, 
a  numerous  sect  of  ancient  Christians,  believed  that  the 
1)ad  spirit  was  self-existent,  and  that  he  created  all  the 
matter  in  the  universe.  If  nature  could  not  inform  us, 
which  of  the  two  made  the  world,  how  could  she  teach 
us  that  either  of  them  did  it  ?  Or,  what  is  still  harder, 
how  could  she  teach  us  the  being  and  attributes  of  a 


16  NATURAL    THEOLOGY. 

person,  that  had  never  been  presented  to  any  ofour  ex- 
ternal senses  in  any  respect  whatever  ? 

As  by  the  help  of  glasses  the  naturahst  discovers 
things  too  distant,  or  too  minute  for  the  naked  eye,  so 
by  Revelation  the  believer  is  enabled  to  obtain  knowl- 
edge too  high,  and  too  abstruse  for  rea.son  unaided  by 
Revelation  to  have  reached.  But  as  these  glasses  show 
nothing  in  contradiction  to  our  sight,  so  the  scriptures 
reveal  nothing  in  opposition  to  reason. 

Independent  of  Revelation,  it  is  altogether  as  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  are 
self-existent  as  that  Cod  is. 

If  the  fact  that  the  solar  system  exists,  is  a  proof  that 
there  must  have  been  a  God.  who  made  it,  then  the  fact 
that  God  exists  is  a  proof  that  there  must  have  been  a 
God,  who  made  him.  If  the  great  state  of  perfection 
and  order,  in  which  iiature  exists,  is  a  proof  that  there 
must  have  been  a  God,  who  made  it,  the  greater  state 
of  perfection,  in  which  God  exists,  must  prove  more 
firmly  that  he  had  a  Creator. 

Without  the  Christian  scriptures,  we  never  could  as- 
certain that  God  is  holy,  because  there  is  nothing  in 
the  empire  of  nature,  that  proves  him  to  be  just  or  mer- 
ciful. 

If  the  fact,  that  he  gives  hfe  and  pleasure  to  multi- 
tudes, is  brought  as  a  proof  of  his  goodness,  then  the 
fact  that  he  afflicts  just  the  same  number  with  misery 
and  death,  mav  be  urged  with  equal  force  to  prove  that 
he  is  malignant. 

If  God  made  this  world  and  all  its  inhabitants,  reason 
would  say  he  claims  them  as  his  own,  and  exercises  a 
particular  providence  over  them  :  but  from  every  thing 
that  can  be  learnt  independently  of  the  Bible,  his  provi- 
dence appears  to  be  more  in  favor  of  vice  than  of  virtue. 
He  has  perniitted  more  vicious  men  to  rule  over  man- 
kind than  he  has  virtuous  ones.  He  has  generally 
given  the  wicked  more  wealth,  ease,  and  earthly  plea- 
sure, than  he  has  the  righteous.  x\lthough  the  virtuous 
part  of  mankind  have  never  contemplated  injury  to  the 
rest,  but  have  always  sousfht  to  do  them  good,  still  God 
has,  in  every  age,  permitted  them  to  be  oppressed,  tor- 
tured, or  otherwise  imposed  on  by  the  wicked. 


NATURAL    THEOLOGY.  17 

The  nations,  destitute  of  the  Bible,  have  mostly  re- 
garded the  ruling  deities,  as  the  most  vicious  beings  in 
the  universe :  and  if  we  had  no  idea  of  rewards  and 
punishments  beyond  the  grave,  and  should  suppose 
that  God  orders  and  controls  all  that  happens  in  this 
world,  we  would  probably  be  led  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion, because  it  is  evident,  that  if  he  orders  all  the 
vicious  actions  of  all  men,  he  must  be  more  vicious 
than  any  one  man.  To  suppose  that  he  does  not  order, 
but  barely  permits,  the  wickedness  of  mankind,  would 
scarcely  reflect  on  him  a  more  amiable  character,  be- 
cause it  would  at  least  make  him  accessary  to  all  the 
wickedness  in  the  world.  Such  a  supposition  w^oiild 
not  only  hold  out  the  idea,  that  he  refuses  to  exert  his 
power  to  suppress  vice,  or  protect  virtue,  but  it  would 
also  represent  him  as  a  being  who  supports  the  wicked, 
while  they  are  oppressing  and  torturing  the  righteous. 

If  God  exists,  but  takes  no  care  of,  nor  exercises  no 
providence  over  mankind  in  any  respect  whatever,  then 
he  is  exactly  as  good  to  us  as  no  God,  because  we 
could  do  just  as  well  without  him  as  with  him.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  he  exists,  and  governs  this  world  just  as 
it  is  governed,  without  any  respect  to  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  he  must  be  worse  than  none,  because  he 
has  generally  been  more  favorable  to  the  wicked  (in 
this  world)  than  to  the  righteous,  a  id  is  himself  the  au- 
thor of  all  the  misery  in  the  world.  Surely  a  cruel  ty- 
rant is  worse  than  no  ruler.  Nature  cannot  teach  us  a 
future  existence,  and  it  is  plain  that  if  our  existence  is 
limited  to  the  present  life,  the  virtuous  must  be  more 
unhappy  than  the  wicked,  because  although  the  suffer- 
ing Christian  in  the  depths  of  poverty,  frequently  has 
more  happiness  than  is  felt  by  pampered  vice  in  the 
midst  of  affluence,  yet  that  happiness  is  derived  from 
the  hope  of  enjoyments  in  the  next  life,  and  of  course  if 
that  prospect  were  cut  off,  the  comforts  flov/ing  from 
it  would  cease.  A  conviction  of  this  truth,  no  doubt, 
made  Paul  say,  "  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in 
Christ,  we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable."  I  Cor. 
XV.  19. 

Before  the  light  of  Revelation  all   these  difficulties 
disappear.     The  Bible  informs  us  that  all  wicked  ac- 
2*  r 


IS  NATURAL    THEOLOGY, 

tions  originate  in  the  persons  who  perpetrate  thern- 
and  are  the  abuse  of  liberty,  the  choicest  gift  of  heaven; 
and  that  in  the  next  hfe  God  will  reward  the  righteous 
with  endless  happiness,  and  inflict  on  the  wicked  ever- 
lasting punishment  according  to  their  crimes.  And 
that  inestimable  book  does  not  only  hold  out  to  the 
worst  of  sinners  an  offer  of  pardon  and  eternal  happi- 
ness on  no  harder  conditions,  than  just  to  forsake  their 
evil  practices  and  lead  a  virtuous  life,  but  it  also  in- 
forms us  all,  that  if  we  will  ask  of  God  he  will  give  us 
his  spirit  to  change  our  hearts,  dnect  us  in  the  way  of 
life,  and  enable  us  to  surmount  every  difficulty  in  our 
road  to  heaven. 

The  advocates  of  natural  theology,  in  trying  to  prove 
the  existence  of  God  from  the  works  of  nature,  gener- 
ally proceed  on  the  assumption  that  the  world  must 
have  been  created,  and  thence  conclude   that  it  must 
have  had  a  Creator  :  thus,  instead  of  proving,  they  as- 
sume the  very  point  in  controversy,  and  then  argue 
from  it  as  though  it  were  an  admitted  or  self-evident 
fact.     If  in  trying  to  prove  that  the  earth  is  not  self-ex- 
istent, they  would  proceed  on  the  assumption,  that  there 
is  a  God  who  created  all  things,  and  thence  conclude, 
that  of  course  this  world  must  have  been  created,  the 
argument  would  be  just  as  conclusive  in  the  one  case 
as  in  the  other.     In  the  former  case  the  disputant  says, 
•'  The  world  was   created,   therefore  there  must  have 
been  a  God."     In  the  latter  case  he  says,  "  There  w^as 
a  God,  therefore  the  world  must  have  been  created." — 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  existence  of  this  world  is  no 
proof  that  there  is  a  God  :  and  it  is  equally  easy  to  see 
that  the  existence  of  a  God  is  no  proof  that  this  world 
was  created  ;  and  if  we  should  even'admit  that  this 
world  was  created,  still  it  would  remain  to  be  proved 
that  God  created  it,  because,  for  any  thing  that  nature 
•teaches  to  the  contrary,  it  might  have  been  created  by 
.?ome  other  being. 

Suppose  I  should  assert  that  this  earth  is  a  hollow- 
sphere,  thickly  inhabited  by  people  on  the  inside,  and 
some  person  would  say  to  me,  *'  How  do  you  know 
that  this  earth  is  hollow  ?'  I  would  answer,  because 
many  people  live  in  the  interior  world.,  and  therefore  it 


NATURAL    THEOLOGY.  19 

must  be  hollow.  He  would  then  ask  me,  how  I  know 
that  people  live  m  this  supposed  concave  ;  I  would  an- 
swer, because  the  earth  is  a  hollow  sphere,  and  there- 
tore  must  be  inhabited  on  both  sides  :  surely  no  man  in 
his  senses  would  say,  I  had  proved  nly  assertions  to  be 
true  ;  and  yet  it  would  be  just  as  good  a  proof  that 
Symmes'  theory  is  correct,  as  the  advocates  of  natural 
theology  have  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  God.  The 
two  very  points,  that  are  accused  at  the  bar  of  reason 
with  being  false,  are  admitted  by  these  arguers  to  prove 
each  other  true.  If  the  Court  would  admit  two  men 
who  stood  indicted  for  perjury  to  prove  each  other 
clear,  it  would  not  act  more  inconsistently. 

If  a  Missouri  Indian,  at  the  foot  of  the  Rocky 
Mountain,  who  had  never  seen  nor  heard  of  a 
book,  should  find  Ferguson's  astronomy,  with  a  com- 
plete set  of  matiiematical  instruments,  they  could  not 
inform  him  that  such  a  man  as  Ferguson  had  lived, 
much  less  could  they  teach  him  the  science  of  astrono- 
my. Just  so  with  blind  nature,  she  cannot  teach  us  the 
existence  of  God,  much  less  his  attributes  and  laws  : 
but  as  the  book  and  instruments  might  be  useful  in  the 
hands  of  a  living  teacher  to  instruct  the  savage  ;  so  na- 
ture, by  the  means  of  Revelation,  may  be  useful  to 
impress  on  our  minds  some  important  lessons,  relative 
to  the  wisdom  and  povrer  of  the  Deitv. 


PART  II. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE    TUUTH   OF   REVELATION. 


As  it  is  impossible  for  men  by  the  powers  of  nature 
to  discover  the  existence  of  God,  so  it  would  be  equalh 
impossible  for  them,  without  a  previous  revelation  to 
report  that  he  exists  ;  for  it  would  be  as  difficult,  without 
the  means  of  mental  conception,  to  conceive  a  false- 
hood, as  a  truth.  Although  in  depraved  nature,  error 
may  flourish  better  than  truth,  still  it  cannot  spring  up 
without  a  seed  ;  therefore  the  fact,  that  mankind  believe 
there  is  a  God,  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  his  existence, 
because,  if  there  was  no  reality  in  it,  they  could  not 
have  invented  the  report. 

As  in  the  dommion  of  nature  nothing  can  grow 
without  a  seed,  so  in  the  empire  of  mind,  ideas  cannot 
spring  from  nothing.  The  seed  of  mental  conception, 
is  knowledge,  which  must  be  received  through  our  ex- 
ternal senses,  or  by  divine  influx.  The  means  of  this 
conception  is  reflection.  By  our  outward  senses  we 
receive  simple  ideas,  and  by  reflecting  on  them,  we  con- 
ceive, or  form  complex  ones,  and  so  combining  thoughts, 
we  reason  and  draw  conclusions.  Mental  conception 
is  an  act  of  the  mind,  but  the  mind  cannot  act  without 
something  to  act  on  :  it  can  no  more  conceive  an  idea 
of  God,  or  of  any  other  being  without  previous  informa- 
tion, than  nature  can  bring  forth  fruit  without  a  seed. 
Hence  it  would  be  as  impossible  for  man  to  fabricate 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  God,  his  attributes  and  laws, 
as  it  would  be  to  grow  large  quantities  of  grain,  ancii 
breed  numerous  flocks  and  herds,  without  any  seed  to 
grow,  or  breed  them  from.     The  richest  ^il,  undei 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION,  2J 

the  best  climate,  and  in  the  most  favorable  season, 
cultivated  to  the  greatest  perfection,  will  yield  no  fruit 
uithout  seed.  So  it  may  be  said  of  man,  if  the  seeds  oi" 
knowledge  are  not  sowed  in  his  mind,  he  cannot  bring 
forth  the  fruits  of  wisdom. 

As  the  ground  that  never  received  seed  cannot  pro- 
duce it,  so  the  man  that  never  received  the  knowledge 
of  God,  cannot  communicate  it ;  and  as  we  are  neither 
born  with  this  knowledge,  nor  can  obtain  it  by  the  study 
of  nature,  it  follows  with  moral  certainty  that  the  first 
w  ho  possessed  it,  must  have  received  it  by  revelation 
from  God. 

When  a  child  gives  us  a  long,  and  connected  account 
of  some  extraordinary  circumstance,  tells  the  names  of 
several  per-;ons  that  were  present  of  whom  we  know  if 
had  never  heard  before,  and  repeats  several  of  their 
learned  expressions,  which  we  know  are  entirely  above 
its  capacity,  we  conclude  the  substance  of  the  narrative 
must  be  true,  because  we  say,  the  child  could  not  invent 
such  a  story  :  so  I  conclude  the  Scriptures  must  be 
true,  because  ignorant  nature  was  unable  to  forge  such 
a  book. 

If  the  inhabitants  of  a  remote  island,  who  from  time 
immemorial  had  never  seen  nor  heard  of  a  living  crea- 
ture, except  those  that  lived  on  their  own  spot  of  ground, 
should  all  tell  me  that  their  island  had  tormerly  been 
inhabited  by  buffaloes,  that  although  they  had  never  seen 
them,  their  ancestors  had,  and  also  accurately  describe 
the  animals,!  should  consider  the  tradition  true,  because 
I  should  suppose  they  were  incapable  of  giving  an  ac- 
curate description  of  those  beasts,  without  some  infor- 
mation on  the  subject.  So  I  think  the  bare  tradition 
that  there  is  a  God  is  a  proof  of  the  fact,  because  such 
a  tradition  could  not  have  started  from  nothing. 

The  fact  that  some  Indians  on  the  Columbia,  who 
had  never  seen  the  sea,  nor  a  ship,  believed  that  ships 
had  been  at  the  mouth  of  that  river,  was  considered  by 
Lewis  and  Clark  as  a  proof  that  those  seas  had  been 
navigated  with  ships,  because  they  rationally  concluded 
that  savages,  who  never  could  have  heard  of  the  sea, 
nor  of  a  ship  from  any  other  quarter,  could  not  invent 
fhe  tale  ;  but  when  they  saw  among  those  people,  seve- 


t^ 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION* 


ral  articles  of  European  manufacture,  said  to  be  bough< 
from  other  Indians,  who  got  them  from  the  ships,  they 
were  confirmed  in  the  opinion,  because  they  knew  those 
people  could  not  make  such  articles,  and  they  knew  no 
other  means  by  which  they  could  have  obtained  them. 
So  when  I  find  that  mankind  believe  there  is  a  God,  I 
take  that  belief  as  a  proof  of  the  fact,  because  I  think 
they  wore  unable  to  forge  the  doctrine ;  but  when  I  find 
in  the  Scriptures,  a  beautitul  and  sublime  description  of 
his  attributes  and  laws,  I  am  confirmed  in  the  opinion, 
because  I  know  these  ideas  and  doctrines  did  not  grow 
out  of  human  nature,  and  I  know  no  way  they  could 
have  received  them,  but  by  revelation  from  God. 

I  invite  every  Deist  to  reflect,  and  inquire,  whether 
he,  or  any  person,  he  ever  saw  obtained  his  first  know- 
ledge of  God  from  the  study  of  nature,  or  from  human 
teachers  ;  if  he,  nor  no  person  he  ever  saw,  received 
his  first  knowledge  of  the  Deity  from  nature,  he  cannot 
be  sure  that  it  can  be  obtained  in  that  way.  Such 
evidence  as  that  on  which  the  Deist  rests  the  being  of 
God,  would  not  be  admitted  before  a  justice  of  the  peace 
to  collect  a  constable's  fee.  It  is  a  mere  opinion  des- 
titute of  proof. 

In  order  to  place  this  subject  in  a  clear  point  of  view, 
I  will  state  a  case,  accompanied  with  evidence  in  every 
respect  similar  to  that,  by  which  the  Deist  tries  to  prove 
the  extisence  of  God. 

A,  sues  B,  for  trespass ;  the  trial  being  set,  and  the 
suit  called — 


A  comes  forward  and 
accuses  B  of  having,  some 
time  prior  to  the  year  of 
our  Lord,  1650,  entered 
on  the  lands  of  xV,  and  dug 
some  deep  holes,  and  cast 
up  a  number  of  mounds, 
by  which  the  said  land  was 
injured  ;  but  B  does  not 
appear  at  the  trial,  and  A 
being  called  upon  to  prove 


The  Deist  comes  into 
court  to  prove  there  is  a 
God  that  made  the  world, 
and  the  lollowing  dialogue- 
takes  place  between  him. 
and  the  court. 


THE  TRUTH    OF    REVELATION. 


^^ 


the  ehaige,  the  following 
dialogue  takes  place  be- 
t\veen  him  and  the  court. 

Court.  How  do  you  know- 
that  B  injured  your  land  ? 

A.  Because  I  found  those 
heights  and  hollows  in  it, 
therefore  I  know  B  must 
have  made  them. 

Court.  Did  you  see  B 
injure  your  land  1 

Jl.  No, it  was  done  before 
I  was  born. 

Court.  Can  you  bring  any 
evidence  that  saw  him  do 
It? 

A.  No, it  was  done  before 
any  of  my  witnesses  were 
born. 

Court.  How  do  you  know, 
but  that  some  other  person 
injured  your  land? 

J^,  I  know  B  must  have 
done  it,  because  no  other 
person  was  capable. 

Court.  Perhaps  these 
heights  and  hollows  in  your 
land  are  natural ;  how  do 
you  know  that  any  person 
made  them  1. 

A.  Because  they  could 
not  have  made  themselves, 
and  of  course  B  must  have 
done  it. 

Court.  Did  you  ever  see 
B? 
A  No. 

Court.  Can  you  produce 
any  person  competent  to 


Court.  How  do  you  kno-\y 
there  is  a  God  ? 

Deist.  Because  I  find 
the  Solar  system  existing, 
therefore  I  know,  there 
must  have  been  a  God 
who  made  it. 

Court.  Did  you  see  God 
make  the  worlds  ? 

Deist.  I'-.o,  they  were 
made  before  I  was  in  ex- 
istence. 

Court.  Can  you  bring 
any  evidence  that  saw  him 
make  the  worlds  ? 

Deist.  No,  they  were 
made  before  any  man  ex- 
isted. 

Court.  How  do  you 
know  but  that  some  other 
being  made  the  worlds  ? 

Deist.  I  know  it  must 
have  been  God,  because 
no  oth^r  being  could  have 
done  it. 

Court.  How  do  you 
know  but  that  matter  is 
self  existent,  and  not  cre- 
ated by  any  being  1 

Deist.  Because  it  could 
not  exist  of  itself,  and 
therefore  God  must  have 
made  it. 

Coin-t.  Did  you  ever 
see  God  ? 

Deist.  No. 

Court.  Can  you  produce 
one  frood  witness,  that  has 


24 


THE  TRUTH   OF   EEVELATION- 


give    evidence,    that    has 
seen  him  ? 

^.  No. 
Co«r^  Where  does  B  hve? 

A.  I  do  not  know,  but 
I  beheve  he  is  every  where 
at  the  same  time,  yet  can- 
not be  seen  personally  at 
any  place. 

Court.  How  do  you 
know  that  there  is  such  a 
man  as  B  ] 

^B.,  Because  he  tres- 
passed on  my  ground. 

Being  dismissed,  and 
walking  into  the  court 
yard,  A  meets  one  of  his 
friends  with  whom  he  has 
the  following  talk. 

Friend.  How  did  you 
first  come  to  know,  that 
there  is  such  a  man  as  B, 
who  injured    your    land? 

A.  The  first  I  recollect 
of  hearing  about  him, my  fa- 
ther told  me,  and  he  said 
he  learned  it  from  an  old 
book  of  records,  that  used 
to  belong  to  his  Grand-fa- 
ther. 

Friend.  Have  you  that 
book  now  1 

A.  Yes. 

Friend.  Why  did  you 
not  take  it  into  court,  as 
evidence  against  B  ? 

A.  Because  it  teaches 
customs,  and  enjoins  mo- 
ral obligations  that  do  not 
accord  with  my  notions  of 
happiness. 


seen  him  1 

Deist.    No. 
Coifr/. Where  does  he  live? 

Deist.  1  do  not  know, 
but  I  believe  his  centre  is 
every  where,  and  his  cir- 
cumference no  where. 

Court.  How  do  you 
know  that  such  a  being  as 
God  exists  I 

Deist.  Because  he  made 
the  world. 

Then  being  dismissed, 
and  walking  out  into  the 
court  yard, the  Deist  meets 
one  of  his  friends,  with 
whom  he  holds  the  follow- 
ing conversation. 

Friend.  Mr.  Deist,  ho^\ 
did  you  first  get  the 
opinion  that  there  is  a 
God, who  made  the  worlds? 

Deist.  Weil  friend  to  be 
candid,  I  acknowledge 
that  the  first  ideas  I  had  of 
God, or  of  creation,!  learn- 
ed from  my  parents,  and 
they  said  they  got  them 
from  the  Bible. 

Friend.  Have  you  the 
Bible  now  ? 

Deist.  Yes. 

Friend.  Why  did  you 
not  take  it  into  court  to 
prove  there  is  a  God  ? 

Deist.  Its  doctrines  con- 
demn my  practice,  and 
cross  my  appetite,  and 
therefore  I  wish  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it. 


THE    TRUTH    or    REVELATION.  25 

Although  I  learned  none  of  the  preceding  arguments 
iVom  books,  I  am  dependant  on  writers  for  most  of  these 
Ml  the  next  t-.v  o  chapters,  but  as  more  than  eighteen 
years  have  passed  since  I  read  them.  I  have  no  perfect 
recollection  of  their  manner  of  treating  the  subject. 


CHAPTER  II. 


We  can  establish  Christianity  by  testimony  thai 
•«.  ould  be  received  as  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice. — - 
The  Bible  proves  as  positively  that  Moses,  the  Proph- 
^^ts,  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  wrought  the  miracles  and 
u  rote  the  books  that  are  ascribed  to  them,  as  the  his- 
tory of  England,  France,  or  Rome,  proves  that  the 
Kings,  or  Emperors,  v^hose  names  are  therein  record- 
ed, ever  lived  and  transa.cted  the  public  business,  that 
is  ascribed  to  them.  It  is  well  known  that  charters  of 
real  estate  are  subjects  of  historical  record,  and  that  in 
law  suits  about  land  these  records  are  always  read  in 
court  as  evidence.  In  one  land  suit  in  Louisiana,  it 
frequently  happens  that  part  of  the  history  of  Spain,  of 
France,  and  of  the  United  States,  is  read  as  evidence, 
because  the  land  has  been  held  under  all  these  govern- 
inents.  The  old  Testament  exhibits  to  the  Jews  a 
clear  charter  for  the  land  of  Canaan,  under  which  they 
held  it  by  metes  and  bounds,  near  two  thousand  years;  so 
that  we  have  as  good  evidence  to  prove  that  the  five 
books  of  Moses,  and  the  book  of  Joshua  are  true,  ac- 
any  freeholder  m  an  old  country  has  to  prove  that  he 
has  a  legal  right  to  his  land. 

The  miracles  by  which  the  Jews  were  put  in  posses- 
sion of  Canaan,  proved  at  once  the  truth  of  their  religion^ 
and  their  right  to  the  soil.  When  they  had  their  law- 
suits about  land,  they,  no  doubt,  frequently  referred  to 
the  crossing  of  Jordan,  the  settling  of  two  and  a  half  of 
their  tribes  in  the  land  of  the  Amorites,  the  demohshing 
of  Jericho,  and  the  big  hail  stones  that  were  thrown  on 
ihe  Amorites  at  the  battle  of  Gibeon,  because  out  ol 
3 


26  THE   TRUTH   OP   REVELATIO?,'. 

these  miracles  grew  the  titles  to  their  lands,  and  ther 
frequently  found  both  registered  in  the  same  page. 

Time  cannot  invalidate  this  evidence,  although  the 
Jews  have  lost  their  land,  the  evidence  that  proves 
they  once  had  a  right  to  it,  is  as  clear  now  as  it  was 
when  Boaz  bought  of  Naomi  and  Ruth  the  land  that 
had  descended  on  them  from  a  warrior,  who  walked 
through  Jordan  diy  shod,  shouted  to  the  sound  of  Ram's 
horns  under  the  walls  of  Jericho,  and  fought  the  Amo- 
rites  when  the  sun  stood  vstill  upon  Gibeon,  and  the  moon 
in  the  valley  of  Ajalon. 

To  reject  Christianity,  because  the  evidences  that  es- 
tablish it  are  mostly  historical,  is  as  absurd  as  it  would 
be  for  a  farmer  to  forsake  his  land  because  it  descended 
from  his  ancestors,  and  the  title  had  become  a  matter 
of  historical  record.  When  talking  against  religion  the 
Deist  says,  "  I  read  of  these  prophecies  and  miracles 
in  books  that  are  said  to  be  as  old  as  Christianity  and 
"^Judaism,  but  as  1  never  saw  those  miracles,  and  did 
not  Uve  from  the  times  that  those  prophecies  were  de- 
livered till  they  were  fulfilled,  they  are  all  nothing  to 
me  but  hearsay,  and  therefore  it  is  not  worth  my  while 
to  cultivate  religion,  nor  try  to  obtain  any  of  its  advan- 
tages." And  with  just  as  much  reason  the  farmer  might 
say,  "  The  evidences  by  which  the  title  of  my  land  is 
established  are  historical  records,  as  ancient  as  the  go- 
vernment under  which  it  was  first  owned,  but  as  I  only 
read  these  evidences  in  old  books,  and  never  saw  the 
land  sui*veyed,  registered,  nor  purchased,  it  is  all  to  me 
nothing  but  hearsay,  and  therefore  it  is  not  worth  my 
while  to  cultivate,  or  try  to  derive  any  benefit  from  my 
estate." 

It  is  utterly  impossible  that  the  Jews  would,  or  could 
have  received  the  books  of  Moses,  and  the  book  of 
Joshua,  as  a  genuine  history  of  their  nation  if  they  had 
not  been  true  ;  because  the  miracles  which  they  say 
■were  wrought  in  Egypt,  at  the  Red  Sea,  at  Mount  Si- 
nai, in  the  wilderness,  at  Jordan,  Jericho,  &c.,  were  so 
stupendous,  and  done  in  the  presence  of  so  many  hun- 
dred thousand  people  in  open  day,  that  they  never 
would  have  been  believed  if  they  had  not  been  true. — 
Vet  we  find  the  Jews  have  always  believed  them,  noi 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION.  27 

kave  I  ever  heard  of  a  Jewish  historian,  that  contradict- 
ed them.  And  besides,  we  should  recollect,  that  these 
things  were  not  mere  opinions,  or  doubtful  conclusions. 
drawn  from  abstruse  premises,  but  they  were  matters 
of  sense  -,  and  every  Jew,  who  had  eyes  and  ears,  was 
capable  of  contradicting  them,  and  detecting  the  impos- 
ture if  it  was  one.  It  is  as  certain  that  the  books  of 
Moses  and  the  book  of  Joshua  are  true,  as  it  is  that  the 
Jews  ever  had  a  political  existence  in  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan ;  because  in  these  books  their  civd  code,  and  their 
religion  are  identified,  and  if  they  are  not  true,  we  have 
no  authority  to  believe  that  those  people  ever  had  a  po- 
litical existence,  priests,  or  religious  ceremonies  :  the 
truth  of  their  religion,  and  the  reality  of  their  national 
and  political  existence  must  stand  or  fall  together,  the 
same  evidences  support  both. 

If  all  miracles  were  excluded  from  the  book  of  Exo- 
dus, it  would  appear  ten  times  as  unreasonable  to  me 
as  it  now  does.  That  between  two  and  three  millions 
of  slaves,  consisting  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
should  be  allowed  to  leave  their  masters,  who  were  per- 
haps the  most  powerful  and  warlike  people  on  earth, 
and  march  off  in  one  body  with  all  their  flocks  and  herds 
without  a  drop  of  blood  being  shed  ;  that  they  should 
be  able  to  escape  from  the  Egyptian  arnjy,  cross  the 
Red  Sea,  subsist  in  such  a  multitude  (that  must  neces- 
sarily travel  very  slow,)  long  enough  to  march  clear 
through  the  barren  desert  of  A.rabia,  invade  Canaan, 
and  establish  themselves  there  under  such  civil  and  re- 
ligious institutions  as  those  by  which  the  Jews  were 
governed,  without  any  miraculou:  interposition  of  God, 
would  appear  to  me  altogether  incredible. 

If  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  Pharoah  and  his  subjects 
were  scourged  with  ten  plagues,  it  is  harder  to  believe 
that  they  would  let  their  slaves  go  for  nothing.  If  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  God  parted  the  Red  Sea  to  let 
the  Jews  walk  through  dry  shod,  it  is  more  difficult  to 
believe  that  such  a  multitude  could  have  crossed  that 
sea  Nvithout  any  natural  means,  while  the  Egyptian 
monarch,  with  his  powerful  army,  was  pressing  on  their 
rear.  If  it  appears  improbable  that  they  were  fed  with 
manna  ia  the  wilderness,  it  will  appear  still  more  improb- 


2S  THE  TRUTH    OF    REVELATION, 

able  tliat  they  could  march  tlu'ough  that  extensive  bar- 
ren desert  without  any  thing  to  eat.  To  admit  that  the 
substance  of  the  history  is  true,  and  then  exclude  all 
miracles  from  it,  would  be  making  it  still  more  mirac- 
ulous, because  it  would  be  affirming  that  a  great  and 
astonishing  revolution  has  been  effected  without  any 
adequate  means. 

The  unbelievers  in  religion  are  like  infidels  in  as- 
stronoiiiy  ;  for  fear  of  believing  one  subhme  truth  be- 
cause it  appears  to  them  miraculous,  they  run  into  the 
necessity  of  believing  things  that  are  ten  times  more 
incredible.  To  the  man  who  denies  the  modern  sys- 
tem of  astronomy,  it  appears  impossible  that  this  big 
earth  should  turn  round  on  its  axes  every  twenty-four 
hours,  but  he  thinks  it  nothing  strange  that  the  sun, 
which  is  vastly  larger,  should  at  the  distance  of  many 
millions  of  miles  from  the  earth  travel  clear  round  it 
every  twenty-four  hours.  So  the  Deist  cannot  believe 
that  God  has  enabled  prophets  and  apostles  to  effect, 
by  miracles,  the -e  great  revolutions,  which  are,  m  fact, 
quite  out  of  the  re^ch  of  any  natural  means  ;  out  it  ap- 
pears to  him  altogether  reasonable,  that  ignorant  im- 
postors, without  the  assistance  of  wealth,  literature,  re- 
ligious prejudices,  civil  or  military  establishments,  or 
even  truth,  but  with  all  these  things  agamst  theai,  and 
without  any  help  from  God,  but  when  they  knew  they 
were  rebelling  against  him,  could  effect  the  most  stu- 
pendous revolution  that  ever  was  achieved  on  earth* 
and  give  to  mankind  a  system  of  morals  by  which  the 
civilized  world  has  ever  since  endeavored  to  frame 
their  civd  institutions  and  regulate  their  judicial  pro- 
ceedings. The  testimony  of  more  than  two  millions  ol 
people  that  were  present  when  the  Almighty  opened  the 
Red  Sea,  and  when  he  rained  manna  from  heaven,  is  not 
sufficient  to  enable  the  Deist  to  believe  that  God 
wrought  these  miracles  :  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  can 
believe,  aid  that  without  any  testimony,  that  God  made 
the  sea,  the  whole  globe,  and  all  the  planets  in  the  uni- 
verse out  of  nothing.  Although  the  apostles  and 
prophets  are  the  most  creditable  witnesses  that  ever 
bore  testimony,  and  have  accompanied  their  evidence 
with  greater  signs  of  truth,  than  any  others  ever  did  : 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION.  29 

the  Deist  cannot  believe  that  God  has  by  them  reveal- 
ed a  system  of  morality  for  the  government  of  mankind; 
and  yet,  .strai.  ^e  as  it  may  appear,  he  can  believe,  with- 
out any  evidence  at  all,  that  the  Almighty  has  ordained 
all  the  wickedness  in  the  world,  and  that  every  thing 
in  this  world  is  going  on  just  as  God  designed  it  should. 
When  a  man  rejects  the  Bible  as  the  Deist  does,  he 
has  no  better  evidence  than  his  own  opinion  to  prove 
that  there  is  a  God,  who  made  and  governs  the  world. 

We  must  acknowledge  the  miracles  of  Moses,  Joshua, 
&c.,  or  else  deny  that  the  old  Testament  contains 
the  history,  religion,  and  laws,  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and 
to  deny  this,  would  be  as  inconsistent  as  to  deny  that 
the  history,  laws,  and  rehgion  of  the  Romans,  English, 
or  French,  are  to  be  found  in  Latin,  Enghsh,  or  French 
books.  The  man  who  denies  that  the  old  Testament 
is  a  genuine  history  of  the  Jewish  nation,  might  as  well 
deny  that  there  ever  was  such  a  nation,  but  if  he  should 
deny  this,  several  millions  of  living  Jews  would  rise  up 
w  ith  their  old  Hebrew  Bibles  in  their  hands,  and  con- 
tradict him. 

The  objection  that  has  been  raised  against  Moses 
and  Joshua  for  invading  Canaan,  and  destroying  its  in- 
habitants, will  disappear  as  soon  as  they  can  show  their 
authority  from  God  for  so  doing  ;  for  then  the  Israelites 
will  only  appear  as  agents,  executing  the  judgments  of 
God  on  those  whom  he  had  condemned  for  their  wick- 
edness, just  as  the  sheriff  executes  the  law  on  a  con- 
demned criminal.  No  one  can  deny  but  that  God  has 
as  good  a  right  to  destroy  nations,  old  and  young,  by 
the  sword,  as  he  has  to  destroy  them  by  earthquakes, 
famine,  or  pestilence. 


.3* 


30  THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATI05. 


CHAPTER   III. 


The  miracles  wrought  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
were  so  many,  so  great,  so  various,  and  performed  in 
the  presence  of  such  vast  multitudes,  that  they  never 
could  have  gained  credit  if  they  had  not  been  true. — 
Yet  we  find  they  did  gain  credit,  and  there  in  Jeru- 
salem, the  principal  theatre  of  Christ's  miracles,  where 
he  was  publicly  crucified  between  two  thieves,  the  very 
place  where  the  imposture,  if  it  was  one,  might  be  most 
easily  detected,  in  less  than  two  months  from  his  cruci- 
fixion, we  find  no  less  than  five  thousand  people  openly 
profess  to  be  his  disciples.  And  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  they  were  not  induced  to  make  this  pro- 
fession for  the  sake  of  wealth  or  worldly  honors,  be- 
cause Christ  had  promised  them  neither,  but  told  them 
that  they  should  be  hated  of  all  men  for  his  name-sake, 
and  that  he  himself  was  not  as  well  off*  in  worldly  goods 
as  a  fox  or  a  bird.  He  told  them  plainly,  that  to  be  his 
disciples  would  cost  them  their  lives  ;  therefore  no- 
thing but  the  clearest  conviction  of  his  divine  mission 
could  have  induced  them  to  become  his  followers.  It 
is  utterly  impossible  for  the  apostles  and  their  associ- 
ates to  have  been  deceived,  because  the  things  on 
which  they  rest  their  testimony  are  matters  of  sense,  not 
matters  of  opinion ;  besides  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  be  deceived  respecting  the  miracles  they 
wrought  themselves.  It  is  equally  impossible  that  they 
could  have  been  deceivers,  because  there  is  not  one 
«iark  of  deception  in  their  characters.  They  always  did 
good,  and  never  did  harm ;  they  persevered  all  their 
days  in  preaching  and  practising  the  purest  morality, 
and  at  last  laid  down  their  lives  in  support  of  the  same. 
if  they  were  impostors  I  v/ould  inquire,  what  are  the 
marks  of  truth  and  honesty  1 

Either  God  or  man  must  be  the  author  of  the  Bible, 
this  position  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  dispute.  And  it 
is  equally  certain  that  if  men  are  the  authors  of  it,  they 
must  be  either  good  men,  or  bad  men.      The  prophet's 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION.  31 

and  apostles,  who  recorded  the  truths  of  the  Bible, 
could  not  have  been  bad  men,  for  the  following  reasons. 
1.  Because  in  their  characters,  there  is  not  one 
trait  of  bad  men;  they  never  spoke  nor  acted  wickedly 
in  all  their  lives,  after  they  became  prophets  or  apos- 
tles. 2.  Because  the  histories  of  their  lives,  exhibit 
every  characteristic  of  good  men;  they  unremittingl}- 
taught  aiid  practised  righteousness,  and  labored  all 
their  days,  and  at  last  laid  down  their  hves  to  support 
virtue.  To  say  they  were  bad  men,  would  be  an  out- 
rage on  common  sense  ;  it  would  be  the  same  as  to  say 
that  very  good  men  are  very  bad  men. 

It  is  impossible  that  bad  men  could  have  been  the 
authors  of  the  Bible,  because  it  teaches  all  men  to  be 
good,  and  threatens  bad  ones  with  the  wrath  of  God. 
and  the  torments  of  hell  for  ever  and  ever.  If  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets  were  impostors,  they  did  not  beheve 
what  they  preached,  and  if  so,  then  undeceived,  wilful 
impostors,  must  have  invented  the  purest  system  ol' 
morals  that  ever  was  preached  on  earth,  denied  them- 
selves of  nearly  all  the  comforts  of  this  life,  and  volun- 
tarily submitted  to  the  most  ignominious  and  painful 
deaths, all  in  support  of  virtue  ;  when,  at  the  sa'me  time, 
they  hated  it  in  their  hearts,  and  did  not  believe,  that 
chher  God  or  raan  required  them  to  do  so,  or  that  they 
would  receive  the  least  benefit  by  so  doing. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  good  men  could  not  be  the 
authors  of  the  Bible  ;  the  men  who  wrote  it  constantly 
and  unequivocally  declare,  they  were  not  the  authors 
of  it,  but  that  they  only  spoke  and  wrote  what  the  Lord 
revealed  to  them;  therefore  if  they  did  not  receive  these 
things  by  divine  inspiration,  they  must  have  been  con- 
stantly in  the  practice  of  lying  wilfully  and  knowingly, 
and  therefore  could  not  have  been  good  men.  If  then, 
neither  bad  nor  good  men,  were  the  authors  of  the  Bi- 
ble, the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  it  cannot  be 
a  human  production,  but  must  have  come  from  God. 

If  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  the  divine  pow- 
er attending  it,  had  not  been  irresistible,  it  could  not 
have  prevailed  at  the  time,  and  in  the  places  where  it 
was  first  preached.  Its  author  neither  accommodated 
the    prejudices,    customs,    appetites,    ambition,    nor 


32  THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION. 

worldly  interest  of  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  but 
required  them  to  take  up  a  cross  against  all  these 
things  ;  and  told  them  plainly,  that  unless  they  would 
forsake  parents,  wives,  children,  houses,  lands,  and 
even  their  own  lives,  they  should  have  no  part  in  him  ; 
while  at  the  same  time  all  the  prejudices,  customs,  su- 
perstitions, learning,  and  civil  authorities  of  those  coun- 
tries, were  arrayed  agaii.st  it;  so  that  every  one  knew 
that  to  profess  Christianity,  was  certain  disgrace, 
end  suffering,  and  aliuost  certain  death.  Yet 
under  all  these  disadvantages  it  triumphed  ;  and  not  by 
military  force,  and  in  the  regions  of  the  greatest  igno- 
rance, and  barbarism  as  Mahometanism  did,  but  by  the 
spirit  of  truth,  and  in  the  precincts  of  science  and  civi- 
lization, so  that  in  a  short  time  it  became  the  prevailing 
rehgion  of  scientitic  Greece,  and  political  Rome  ;  and 
has  ever  since  held  its  empire  over  civilized  man. 
There  was  no  train  of  natural  causes  sufficient  to  pro- 
duce this  great  change  in  the  moral  condition  of  man- 
kind, but  on  the  contrary  every  thing  in  the  dominion 
of  nature,  and  in  the  state  of  society  stood  in  opposi- 
tion to  it  ;  therefore  to  deny  that  it  was  effected  by  su- 
pernatural agency,  would  be  the  same  as  to  say  that 
great  eflects  have  arisen  from  no  cause. 

If  the  miracles  said  to  be  wrought  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles  were  false,  v.hy  were  they  not  then  detected? 
Learning,  the  prejudices  of  the  age,  numbers,  and  ci- 
vil authority  were  all  on  the  side  of  their  enemies, 
and  if  they  were  impostors,  nothing  could  have 
been  easier,  than  for  those  enemies  to  defeat  them  ; 
and  by  murdering  Christ,  and  more  than  a  hundred 
thousand  of  his  followers,  they  proved  that  they  were 
disposed  to  suppress  both  hini  and  his  religion. 

If  a  man  should  be  arraigned  at  the  bar  ibr  forgery, 
and  his  enemies  should  have  every  advantage  over  him, 
that  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  had  over 
them,  and  when  the  trial  would  come  on,  his  accusers 
would  assert  that  they  had  more  than  a  thousand  living 
witnesses  who  saw  him  commit  the  crime,  and  then  af- 
ter manifesting  the  greatest  zeal  and  rancor,  so  com- 
pletely fail  to  bring  one  proof  against  him,  either  posi- 
tive or  ciicumstantialj  that  the  judge  M'ould  declare  of 


THE    TRUTH    OF    REVELATION.  33 

him,  as  Pilot  did  of  Christ,  that  he  found  no  fault  in  the 
man,  surely  common  sense  would  pronounce  him  inno- 
cent. Similar  to  this  was  the  trial  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
if  his  enemies  with  every  facility  failed  to  convict  him 
of  forgery  then,  how  can  they  expect  to  do  it  now,  after 
his  gospel  has  stood  the  test  of  eighteen  centuries,  and 
has  always  proved  itself  to  be  the  nurse  of  science,  and 
the  promoter  of  every  thing  that  accords  with  the  best 
interest  of  man? 

The  Bible  informs  us,  that  if  we  will  repent  of  our 
sins,  take  up  our  cross,  and  persevere  in  praying 
to  God,  he  will  give  us  his  holy  spirit  to  change  our 
hearts,  cleanse  us  from  sin,  and  fill  us  with  joy  un- 
speakable and  full  of  glory  :  and  the  Christians  who 
have  complied  with  these  conditions,  have  found  the 
promise  true  ;  therefore,  with  them  Christianity  is  not 
merely  a  matter  of  opinion;  it  is  a  subject  of  experience, 
and  there  are  among  us  tens  of  thousands  of  living 
witnesses,  that  have  felt  this  supernatural  change, 
whose  lives  and  conversation  corroborate  their  tes- 
timony. 

No  man  in  the  world  is  naturally  disposed  to  love 
his  enemies,  and  to  do  good  to  them  that  injure  him  ; 
but  all  men  acting  under  the  influence  of  nature,  return 
good  for  good,  and  evil  for  evil.  Therefore  this  reli- 
gion, which  teaches  and  disposes  us  to  love  our  ene- 
mies, and  return  good  for  evil,  must  bo  superhuman, 
must  be  divine.  I  have  long  thought  that  the  gospel 
contams  internal  evidence  of  its  own  divinity. 

It  was  as  impossible  for  this  anti-sinfui  gospel  to  origi- 
nate from  fraud,  as  it  is  for  anti-republican  principles  to 
proceed  from  republicanism, or  anti-scriptural  doctrines 
to  grow  out  yji  liic  Bible.  That,  which  is  opposite  to 
corruption,  cannot  grow  out  of  it.  That,  vhich  comes 
against  the  current  of  corrupt  nature,  cha-tens  it,  and 
turns  it  into  the  path  of  rectitude,  must  be  «6oi'e  nature. 


PART  III. 
THOUGHTS  ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITl 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    UNITY    OF    GOD. 

i  shall  first  attempt  to  prove  that  there  is  but  one 
self-existing  independent  God. 

*'  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  God  before  me."  Ex. 
XX.  3,  "  Unto  thee  it  was  showed  that  thou  mightest 
Imow,  that  the  Lord  he  is  God ;  there  is  none  else 
besides  him."  Deut.  iv.  35 — 39.  "  Know  therefore, 
this  day,  and  consider  it  in  thine  heart,  that  the  Lord  he 
is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath  : 
there  is  none  else."  "  Thou  art  God  alone."  Psal. 
Ixxxvi.  10.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  King  of  Israel, 
and  his  Redeemer  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I  am  the  first,  and 
I  am  the  last ;  and  besides  me  there  is  no  God."  Isa. 
xliv.  6.  ''  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else." 
Chap.  xlv.  6 — 22.  Some  people  argue  that,  because 
this  God  is  called  the  Redeemer  of  Israel,  he  is  there- 
fore Christ,  and  hence  infer  that  Christ  is  all  the  God 
in  the  universe.  But  this  conclusion  is  certainly  un- 
warranted, because  the  title  of  Redeemer  must  be  as 
applicable  to  the  Father,  as  it  is  to  the  Son.  "Have  we 
not  all  one  Father?  Hath  not  one  God  created  us  ?" 
Mai.  ii.  10.  "  Hear,  0  Israel ;  the  Lord  our  God  is 
one  Lord."  Deut.  vi.  4.  He  did  not  say  the  Lords, 
our  Gods,  are  three  Lords.  In  the  New  Testament, 
Christ  repeats  this  text  in  the  same  words,  but  if  ho 


i::fiTY  OF  GOD.    .  35 

knew  that  God  existed  in  a  Trinity  of  persons,  and  thai 
it  is  essential  to  our  salvation  for  us  to  believe  so,  he 
certainly  would  not  have  deceived  us,  but  would  have 
told  us  plainly  that  God  exists  in  three  persons.  "  God 
is  one."  Gal.  iii.  20.  "  Thou  believest  that  there  is 
one  God,  thou  doest  well."  Jam.  ii.  19.  One  of  the 
scribes  asked  the  Saviour,  ''  which  is  the  first  com- 
mandment of  all  ?"  and  Jesus  answered  him,  ''  The 
first  of  all  the  commandments  is,  hear,  0  Israel;  the 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  "  And  the  scribe  said 
unto  him,  well  Master,  thou  hast  said  the  truth ;  for 
there  is  one  God  ;  and  there  is  none  other  but  he." 
Mark  xii.  29—32.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
Christ  and  the  scribe,  in  this  passage,  both  intended  to 
assert  that  God  is  personally,  numerically,  and  essen- 
tially but  one  being. 

I  will  now  show  from  scripture  that  this  one  God  is* 
the  Father.  "  There  is  one  body  ;  and  one  sspirit,  even 
as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling  ;  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who 
is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all."  Eph.  iv. 
4 — 6.  Here  the  apostle  asserts  that  this  one  God  and 
Father  oj  all  is  above  all.  Now  it  is  plain  that  if  the 
one  Spirit,  and  the  one  Lord,  that  are  mentioned  in  the 
same  passage,  are  both  God  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
Father  is,  and  are  in  all  respects  as  great  as  he  is,  the 
apostle  has  told  two  falsehoods  :  first,  he  has  said  that 
there  is  but  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  when  at  the 
same  time  he  knew  that  the  one  Spirit,  and  the  one  Lord, 
were  just  as  much  God,  as  the  Father  is.  And  in  the 
second  place,  he  has  affirmed  that  this  one  God  and 
Father  is  above  all,  when  at  the  same  time,  he  knew 
as  well  as  he  knew  he  had  a  head,  that  the  one  spirit, 
and  one  Lord,  that  he  had  just  mentioned  in  contradis- 
tinction from  the  Father,  and  from  each  other,  were  both 
coequal,  coessential,  and  coeternal  with  the  Father. 
If  a  preacher  in  a  Trinitarian  church  in  the  present  day 
should  affirm  that  neither  the  Lord,  nor  the  Spirit  is 
God,  and  that  there  is  no  God  but  the  Father,  and  that 
he  is  above  all  the  beings  in  the  universe,  they  would 
charge  him  with  heresy  :  and  no  doubt  if  the  Ephesians 
had  b?en  strong  Trinitarians,  they  would  have  had  Paul 


36  UNITY    OF    GOD. 

up  about  it.  Well  for  old  Paul,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  was  not  known  in  the  church  at  that  day,  or  per- 
haps he  would  have  shared  the  fate  of  ^lithael  Survetus., 
whom  John  Calvin  caused  to  be  burnt  ahve  for  believ- 
ing that  the  Father  was  greater  than  the  Son. 

Paul  says,  "  We  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the 
world,  and  that  there  is  none  other  God  but  one.  For 
though  there  be,  that  are  called  Gods,  whether  in  heav- 
en or  in  eartn,  (as  there  be  Gods  many,  and  Lords  ma- 
ny.) But  to  u-  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father,  of 
whom  are  all  thmgs,  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  by  whom  are  all  tilings,  and  we  by  him.*' 
I  Cor.  viii.  4,  5,  6.  Here  Paul  declares  that  there  is 
but  one  God,  and  that  this  one  God  is  the  t  ather  ;  and 
by  mentioning  him  in  contradistinction  from  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  he  most  unequivocally  denies  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  God  of  the  Christians. — 
If  I  should  say  there  are  a  great  many  people  in  the 
state,  but  in  this  house  there  is  but  one  man,  and  one 
little  boy,  it  would  I  e  clearly  denying  that  the  boy  is  a 
man.  From  this  passage  it  appears  that  all  things  are 
of,  that  is,  they  all  originated  trom  God,  and  were  made 
and  consist  by  Christ ;  which  proves  God  to  be  the 
prime,  and  Christ  the  instrumental  cause  of  creation, 
redemption,  and  providence. 

If  in  writing  a  letter  to  your  friend  in  England,  rela- 
tive to  our  government,  you  would  say,  ''  There  is  but 
one  President  in  this  country,  for  though  there  be  that 
are  called  Presidents,  whether  in  church  or  in  state, 
[as  there  are  ;•  an  inferior  sense,  Presidents  many, 
and  Secretaries  many,)  but  to  us,  the  American  people, 
there  is  but  one  President,  viz.  John  Quincy  Adams, 
from  whom  all  executive  power  originates,  and  one 
Secretary  of  State,  viz.  Henry  Clay,  by  whom  the 
whole  department  of  State  is  regulated  ;"  by  such 
writing  you  would  not  only  deny  that  the  Secretary  is  the 
chief  ruler,  but  you  would  plainly  affirm  that  his  power 
is  derived  from  the  President  ;  and  certaiily  no  person 
of  CO'  mon  sense  could  gather  from  such  statements, 
that  this  government  has  a  triumvirate  of  three  persons 
in  the  Presidency.  How  could  Paul,  consistently  with 
truth,  declare  that  the  Father  is  the  one  God  of  whom 


CNITY   OP   GOD.  07 

five  all  tilings,  ^ud  that  too  in  contradistinction  from 
«he  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  if,  at  the  same  time,  he 
knew  the  son  was  as  great  a  God  as  the  father,  and  had 
as  much  original  power  as  he  had  ? 

In  teaching  Timothy  the  knowledge  of  God,  Paul 
says,  ^^  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  I  Tim. 
ii.  5.  Here  the  writer  draws  as  clear  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  one  God  and  the  one  Mediator,  as  he  does 
between  the  one  God  and  men.  If  1  should  say  there 
is  one  British  King,  and  one  mediator  between  the  Brit- 
ish King  and  the  United  States,  viz.  the  Emperor  of 
Russia,  would  not  the  distinction  be  as  clearly  marked 
between  the  King  and  the  Emperor  as  it  would  be  be- 
tween the  King  and  the  U.  States  ?  Then  who  could  be 
condemned  as  a  fool  and  as  an  enemy  to  his  country, 
tor  taking  up  the  idea  from  such  an  expression,  that  tlie 
British  King  and  the  Russian  Emperor  are  two  distinct 
persons  ?  So  I  think  no  person  should  be  treated  as  a 
fool,  or  as  a  heretic,  for  believing  that  God  and  the 
3Iediator  are  two  distinct  beings. 

If  I  should  say  there  was  one  man  very  angry  witli 
me, and  that  there  was  one  mediator  stepped  in  between 
him  and  me,  viz.  a  woman,  the  distinction  would  not  be 
more  clearly  marked  between  the  man  and  the  woman, 
than  Paul  has  marked  it  in  this  text  between  the  one 
God  and  the  one  JMcdiator ;  nor  would  this  form  of  speech 
more  clearly  show  that  the  woman  was  not  a  man  than 
the  above  text  proves,  that  the  man,  Christ  Jesus,  is  not 
the  supreme  God.  But  if  I  knew  that  this  Mediator,, 
who  stepped  in  between  me  and  the  angry  man,  was 
also  as  really  and  properly  a  man  as  he  was,  and  yet,  at 
the  same  time,  should  report  that  he  was  a  woman,  I 
should  be  guilty  of  falsehood  :  and  if  Paul  knew  that 
the  Mediator  was  as  really  and  properly  God,  as  the 
tather  was  ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  asserted  that  he 
was  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  in  contradistinction  from  the 
one  God,  he  has  used  language  adapted  to  deceive  all 
his  readers. 

If  the  blessed  Jesus  is  the  supreme  God,  he  cannot 
he  the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  because  a  me- 
diator is  not  a  mediator  of  one,  but  must  be  a  third  per- 
4 


38  rxixr  OF  gov, 

son  interposing  between  two  contending  parties.  An 
offended  God,  and  offending  sinners  are  these  two  par- 
ties, and  if  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  then  he  is  one  of 
the  parties,  and  therefore  cannot  be  a  third  person  to 
mediate  between  himself  and  the  other. 

Once,  a  long  time  ago,  a  Trinitarian  reproached  me 
for  denying  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  I  asked  him  if  he 
believed  Jesus  Christ  was  the  self-existent  supreme 
God,  and  he  answered  yes.  1  then  asked  him  if  he  be- 
lieved there  was  any  mediator  between  Jesus  Christ  and 
sinners,  and  he  said  no ;  then  said  I,  you  do  not  be- 
lieve there  is  any  Mediator  bet^veen  the  self-existent 
s  upreme  God  and  sinners.  I  then  saw  clearly,  that 
Trinitarianism  takes  the  IMediator  to  make  a  God  of, 
and  as  I  did  not  feel  willing  to  risk  the  chance  of  get- 
ting to  heaven  without  a  Mediator,  I  concluded  that  our 
heavenly  Father  would  do  for  my  God,  and  I  would 
cling  to  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mediator  between  him  and 
me,  and  trust  in  God  to  save  me  through  the  blessed 
Jesus,  according  to  the  plan  laid  down  in  the  Gospel. 
I  know  many  good  people  teach  that  Christ's  human 
nature  is  the  Mediator  between  his  divinity  and  men  ; 
but  as  they  have  never  proved,  nor  never  can  prove, 
that  he  is  both  a  finite  and  an  infinite  being,  that  he  has 
an  infinite  nature,  which  stands  opposed  and  needs  to 
be  reconciled  to  the  salvation  of  men,  and  also  a  finite 
or  human  nature,  which  is  disposed  to  favor  them,  I  see 
no  authority  to  trust  in  such  a  mediation  ;  besides  if  all 
my  hopes  of  salvation  were  bottomed  on  the  exertions 
ofa  mere  human  being,  who  has  to  plead  niy  cause 
against  an  infinite  unchangeable  God,  that  feels  dispos- 
ed to  damn  me,  I  should  think  my  chance  is  but  slim. 
-But  when  I  consider  that  the  Mediator  is  ten  thousand 
times  greater  than  all  the  men  on  earth  and  all  the  an- 
gels in  heaven,  and  the  next  greatest  being  in  the  uni- 
verse to  God  the  Father  ;  and  when  I  regard  God  as  a 
being,  altogether  as  forgiving  and  compasssionate  as 
Christ  is,  and  reflect  that  all  the  Mediator  has  to  do  in 
order  to  save  my  soul,  is  to  cleanse  me  from  sin,  and 
reconcile  me  to  God  ;  and  when  the  scripture  informs 
rae,  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is  given  to 
him,  and  that  he  is  able  save  to  the  uttermost  all  who 


TRINITY.  39 

Will  come  to  God  by  him,  I  can  feel  no  hesitation  in 
trusting  my  soul  to  his  care.  And  if  there  is  any  far- 
ther encouragement  necessary  to  enable  us  to  trust  in 
Christ,  it  is  furnished  by  those  passages  of  scripture, 
which  inform  us  that  he  has  conquered  death,  and  that 
God  has  committed  all  judgment  to  him,  and  engaged 
to  make  good  to  tlie  Christians  every  promise  which  he 
has  made  in  the  Gospel. 

The  difterence  between  us  and  the  Trinitarians  on 
the  subject  of  redemption,  appears  tome  to  be  this: 
we  hold  that  the  Father  is  engaged  to  reconcile  sinners 
to  himself,  through  the  instrumentality  of  his  Son,  who 
is  the  next  greatest  being  in  the  universe  to  God  ;  while 
Ihey  teach  that  his  human  nature,  which  they  say  is  a 
mere  man,  is  engaged  to  reconcile  an  unchangeable 
God  to  sinners.  And  which  of  these  views  gives  the 
greater  encouragement  to  sinners  the  reader  will  judge. 


CHAPTER  He 


THE    DOCTRIXE    OF    THE    TRINITY    EXAMINED. 

Many  good  people  believe  that  in  God  there  is  a 
trinity  of  three  coequal,  coessential,  and  coeternal  per- 
sons, v/hom  they  call  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  also  affirm,  that  the 
Son  is  eternally  begotten  of  the  Father,  and  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  eternally  proceeding  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  These  doctrines  are  plainly  stated  in  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith, and  may  also  be  found 
in  several  standard  books  that  have  been  adopted  as 
systems  of  faith  by  the  different  religious  sects. 

If  these  phrases  were  in  the  Bible,  I  would  not  say 
a  word  against  them  ;  but  as  neither  the  word  trinity^ 
coequal,  coessential,  nor  coeternal,  nor  the  phrase,  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  nor  eternally  begotten,  nor  eter- 
noJ.hj  proceedings  nor  eternal  son  of  God,  is  in  the  holy 


A 


40  TRINITY. 

scriptures,  but  are  all  mere  human  inventions  ;  no  per- 
son who  takes  the  Bible  for  a  standard  will  consider  me 
erroneous  for  rejecting  them,  and  making  them  sub- 
jects of  animadversion,  rt.  The  idea  of  a  person  and  the 
idea  of  a  being  are  inseparable,  they  are  both  one  idea. 
We  cannot  possibly  conceive  of  a  person  without  hav- 
ing the  idea  of  a  being  formed  in  our  minds.  The  mo- 
ment we  conceive  of  three  persons,  who  are  equally 
God,  that  moment  we  conceive  of  three  beings,  who 
are  equally  God.  If  any  Trinitarian  should  dispute  this, 
let  him  ask  himself  whether  he  believes  either  of  the 
three  persons  is  a  real  being  or  not,  and  his  own  con- 
science will  convince  him  that  I  am  correct.  If  I 
should  state  that  there  are  three  equal  persons  in  the 
room,  and  that  each  of  them  is  really  and  properly  a 
man,  it  would  be  most  clearly  affirming  that  there  are 
three  men  in  the  room  ;  and  if  I  say  there  are  three  co- 
eternal  persons,  each  of  whom  is  really  and  properly 
God,  it  is  as  plain  a  declaration  that  there  are  three  co- 
eternal  G  >ds,  as  can  be  made  in  human  language. 

Each  of  these  persons  must  be  a  being,  or  a  nonen- 
tity. If  you  believe  they  are  three  beings,  and  each 
one  eternally  God,  then  you  believe  there  are  three 
eternal  Gods  :  but  if  you  deny  that  either  of  them  is  a 
real  being,  then  you  deny  that  there  are  three  persons 
in  the  Godhead,  because  you  have  asserted  that  neither 
of  th  se  persons  is  a  real  being.  If  God  exists  in  three 
persons,  and  neither  of  these  three  persons  is  a  real  be- 
ing, then  God  is  not  a  real  bemg,  because  three  nonen- 
tities cannot  make  a  being. 

Trinitarianism  runs  me  into  a  dilemma  between 
Tritheism  and  Atheism.  If  there  are  three  persons, 
each  of  whom  is  a  real  being,  and  really  and  properly 
God,  then  there  must  be  three  Gods  ;  but  if  neither  of 
them  is  a  being  who  is  really  God,  then  there  is  no  be- 
ing that  is  really  a  God,  because  if  neither  Father,  Son, 
nor  Holy  Ghost,  is  a  real  being,  and  properly  a  God. 
there  can  be  no  God  in  the  universe. 

Equality  implies  plurality  ;  a  lone  being  must  be 
compared  with  some  other  being  before  it  can  be  said 
of  him  that  he  is  equal,  therefore  if  the  word  equal  is 
applicable  to  the  persons  in  the  trinity,  they  must  be  a 


'  TRINITY.  4^1 

plurality  of  beings,  equal  with  each'other  by  comparison. 
But  if  there  be  three  persons  or  beings,  that  are  equal- 
ly and  eternally  Goc],  then  there  can  be  no  supreme 
being,  because  no  being  can  be  supreme,  who  is  in  com- 
pany with  two  others,  that  are  in  every  respect  equal 
to  himself. 

If  these  three  persons  are  not  three  beings,  but  all 
compose  only  one  being,  then  God  must  exist  in  three 
component  parts.  This  runs  into  Atheism,  because  if 
each  of  the  three  persons  is  but  the  third  part  of  a  God, 
there  is  not  a  whole  God  among  them,  because  three 
Unite  parts  cannot  make  one  infinite  whole. 

There  is  no  truth  more  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible, 
than  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  If  God  from  all 
eternity  existed  in  three  persons,  then  Christ  must  be 
the  Son  of  three  persons  ;  if  so,  he  must  be  the  fourth 
person  in  the  Godhead.  If  Christ  is  the  eternal  Son  of 
God,  and  was  eternally  begotten  of  three  persons,  then 
he  must  have  been  one  of  the  three  persons  that  eter- 
nally begot  himself.  But  if  he  was  begotten  by  his 
Father  alone,  then  he  could  not  be  as  old  as  his  Father, 
nor  an  eternal  Son.  If  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Father  are 
one  and  the  same  being,  that  is,  if  he  is  the  self-existent 
God  and  Father  of  all,  and  yet  was  eternally  begotten, 
then  the  self-existent  Father  and  God  over  all,  was 
eternally  begotten,  and  is  an  eternal  Son.  If  to  escape 
the  absurdity  of  believing  that  the  Father  v.-as  eternally 
begotten,  we  should  conclude  that  he  and  the  Son  arc 
two  distinct  beings,  then  vve  must  either  suppose  that 
they  are  both  self-existent,  and  so  believe  in  two  self- 
existent  Gods  ;  or  else  we  must  fall  in  with  the  scriptur- 
al doctrine  that  Jesus  Christ  derived  his  existence  from 
God. 

If  Christ  is  the  self-existent  God  and  at  the  same  time 
the  Son  of  the  same  God,  then  he  must  be  the  Son  of 
himselt^.  If  he  h  the  self-existent  God,  and  if  that  very 
self-existent  God  is  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  then  he  is  the  Father  of  himself.  And  if  he  is 
the  Father  of  that  being  whose  Son  he  is,  then  he  must 
be  his  own  Grandfather. 

To  say  that  Christ  is  self-existent,  is  the  same  as  to 
sav  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God,  because  that  being,  who 
4^^ 


42  TRINITY. 

derived  existence  from  no  one,  but  independently  ex- 
isted of  himself  from  all  eternity,  cannot  be  a  Son,  can- 
not have  a  Father  ;  because  the  terms  Father  and  Son 
are  inseparable  from  the  ideas  of  predecessor  and  suc- 
cessor, and  elder  and  younger.  If  the  phrase  Son  oj 
God  does  not  prove  that  he  derived  his  existence  from 
God,  it  does  not  prove  that  he  is  any  how  related  to  him. 
Many  people  in  the  present  day  deny  a  trinity  of  per- 
sons, but  contend  for  a  trinity  of  offices  in  God.  They 
say,  that  as  one  man  may  at  the  same  time  be  a  judge 
of  the  court,  a  justice  of  the  peace,  and  a  captain  of  the 
militia,  so  by  the  titles  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
God  reveals  himself  to  us  in  the  three  offices  of  Creator. 
Hedeemer,  and  Sanctifier.  If  these  men  mean  what 
they  say,  they  do  not  believe  that  Christ  is  a  person,  or 
a  rational  being,  but  that  he  is  nothing  but  an  office. — 
They  may  truly  speak  of  Judge  Good,  Esquire  Good, 
and  Captain  Good,  and  still  mean  the  same  person,  but 
they  cannot  in  truth,  apply  such  language  to  him  as 
the  holy  scriptures  do  to  Christ  and  his  Father. — 
They  cannot  say,  in  truth,  that  Captain  Good  stands 
at  Esquire  Good's  right  hand,  nor  that  Esquire  Good 
proceeded  and  came  forth  from  Captain  Good,  and 
that  he  did  not  come  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the   Captain  who  sent  him. 

It  is  not  a  little  strange  that  in  many  of  the  Trinitarian 
Churches  a  majority  of  the  members  are  of  this  faith  ; 
and  although  they  flatly  deny  that  there  is  more  than  one 
person  in  the  Godhead,  yet  they  are  considered  ortho- 
dox ;  and  notwithstanding  they  are  downright  Unitari- 
ans themselves,  they  cordially  unite  with  the  Trinita- 
rians to  persecute  every  man  who  acknowledges  him- 
self a  Unitarian,  or  that  believes  Christ  derived  his  ex- 
istence from  the  Father. 

Although  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  trinity 
is  a  leading  article  m  the  creeds  of  all  the  Trinitarian 
Churches, yet  but  few  of  their  members  will  acknowledge 
that  there  are  three  coequal,  coeternal  persons,  each 
one  of  whom  is  really  and  properly  God.  Notwith- 
standing the  most  of  them  acknowledge  the  trinity  in 
i-^ome  form  or  other,  they  diffi^r  widely  among  them- 
selves on  the  subject.     The  first  class  teach  that  there 


TRLMTV.  43 

arc  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Asecond  class  believe 
that  God  has  a  trinity  of  offices,  as  above  stated.  There 
is  a  third  sort  of  Trinitarians,  who  contend  for  three 
modes  of  existence  ;  they  say  that,  as  rain,  snow,  and 
ice,  are  not  three  elements,  but  are  only  three  modes, 
in  which  the  one  element  of  water  exists,  so  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  not  three  persons,  each  one 
of  whom  is  a  real  God,  but  only  three  modes,  in  which 
the  one  God  exists.  A  fourth  class  beheve  in  a  trinity 
of  attributes  ;  they  argue,  that  as  light,  color,  and  heat  are 
three  distinct  properties  of  the  one  natural  sun,  so  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  nothing  more  than  three 
attributes,  or  pertections  of  the  one  God.  There  is  a 
fifth  sort  of  Trinitarians,  who  deny  that  there  are  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  words,  three  persons  in  God,  and  yet 
contend  for  three  distinctions  in  Deity  ;  but  what  they 
mean  by  these  three  distinctions  I  have  never  been  able 
to  learn.  A  sixth  description  of  Trinitarians  with  whom 
I  have  been  acquainted,  openly  deny  that  there  are 
three  coeternal  self  existent  persons,  each  of  whom  is 
God,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word ;  but  they  con- 
tend for  a  trinity  of  faculties  in  the  Almighty.  They 
say,  that  as  soul,  body,  and  spirit  make  but  one  man. 
and  as  will,  memory,  and  understanding  form  but  one 
mind,  so  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  compose  but 
one  God.  I  have  known  a  seventh  class  who  say  that 
all  they  mean  by  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is 
three  operations  of  the  Divine  Being.  The  eighth 
division  in  the  Trinitarian  phalanx  declare  that  by  three 
persons,  they  only  mean  three  relations  in  Deity,  ilnd 
those  people  who  argue,  that  all  we  should  understand 
by  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  three  manitesta- 
tions  of  God  to  his  creatures,  bring  up  the  ninth  divi- 
sion of  this  great  Trinitarian  army. 

Notwithstanding  eight  divisions  out  of  nine  in  this 
mighty  host,  deny  that  there  is  more  than  one  person, 
who  is  God  in  the  highest  sense,  yet  for  professing  to 
believe  in  a  trinity,  they  are  all  allowed  to  be  orthodox. 

It  is  not  common  for  logicians  to  dispute  much  about 
words, when  they  agree  in  the  idea;but  as  it  is  impossible 
to  form  any  distinct  idea  of  how  God  can  be  but  one 
undivided  mtional  bemgjand  yet,  at  the  same  time^  be 


44  TRINITY. 

three  distinct  rational  persons,  the  abettors  of  the  sys-. 
tern  appear  to  have  conckided  that  ideas  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it,  and  have  therefore  mutually  agreed  not  to 
trouble  themselves  about  the  idea,  but  just  contend  for 
the  word,  and  extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  all  who 
ascribe  a  trinity  to  God;  whether  they  mean  a 
trinity  of  persons,  offices,  attributes,  modifications,  re- 
lations, manifestations,  faculties,  operations,  distinc- 
tions, or  what  not.  If  all  this  is  orthodox  trinitarian- 
ism,  it  appears  to  me  that  no  r.eliever  in  a  God  can  be 
unsound  in  the  faiih  of  the  trinity  ;  because  we  all  be- 
lieve God  is  a  Creator,  a  Lawgiver,  and  a  Judge,  or 
that  he  has  at  least  three  attributes,  or  that  we  have 
three  manifestations  of  God  in  the  works  of  creation, 
providence,  and  redemption. 

But  some  of  us  cannot  conscientiously  call  Jesus 
Christ  a  mere  attribute,  nor  a  mere  operation,  nor  can 
we  believe  that  the  unchangeable  God  has  goneVnrough 
three  modifications  as  water  does,  when  it  is  alternate- 
ly changed  into  rain,  snow,  and  ice. 

If  these  people  who  oppose  the  doctrine  of  three 
persons  in  the  trinity,  believe  as  they  say,  they  are  all 
strictly  Unitarians  ;  that  is,  they  believe  there  is  but]one 
person  who  is  a  self  existent  God.  I  am  truly  glad  that 
the  march  of  intellect  in  the  present  day  is  so  great,  that 
the  anti-scriptural,  unreasonable  doctrine  of  three  co- 
eternal  persons  in  the  Godhead,  is  becoming  almost 
universally  unpopular. 

It  is  not  probable  that  Christians  will  long  contend 
that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  nothing  but 
three  attributes,  modes  of  existence  or  the  like,  be- 
cause they  must  soon  see  that  if  any  one  of  these  sys- 
tems be  true,  a  great  part  of  the  scriptures  must  be 
nonsense.  If  the  person  of  God  consists  of  three  at- 
tributes, or  three  modes  of  existence,  and  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  compose  two  thirds  of  them,  then 
Christ  must  be  a  mere  attribute,  or  a  mode  of  exist- 
ence, and  the  Son  of  three  attributes,  or  of  three  modes 
of  existence,  and  at  the  same  time,  one  of  those  very 
attributes,  or  modes,  whose  Son  he  is.  The  same  mav 
be  said  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  this  doctrine  be  true, 
it  is  nothing  but  an  attribute,  or  a  mode  of  existence. 


TRINITY.  45 

and  proceeds  from  three  attributes  or  from  three 
modes  of  existence,  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  one  of 
those  very  attributes,  or  modes  of  existence,  from 
which  it  proceeds. 

Every  reflecting  man  must  see  that  these  trinities  of 
attributes,  manifestations,  &c.  cannot  bear  the  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  nor  sustain  the  offices,  that  the 
scriptures  ascribe  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  is 
not  true  that  one  manifestation,  or  one  mode  of  exist- 
ence is  the  only  begotten  son  of  another.  Nor  would 
it  accord  with  truth  or  good  sense,  to  say  that  one  attri- 
bute stands  at  another  attribute's  right  hand.  Christ 
says  that  he  proceeded  and  came  forth  from  God,  and 
that  he  did  not  come  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
his  Father,  that  ?ent  him  :  but  the  idea  of  one  mode  of 
existence, or  so  forth,  proceeding  and  coming  forth  from 
another,  and  not  coming  to  do  its  own  will,  but  the  will 
of  the  other  that  sent  it,  is  too  absurd  to  need  refutation. 

It  would  not  be  scriptural  to  say  that  a  relation^ 
a  manifestation, or  a  distinction^  created  the  world,  is  the 
Judge  of  the  world,  or  the  Mediator  between  God  and 
men;  but  to  say  these  things  of  the  F'ather  and  the  Son, 
is  to  speak  the  very  language  of  the  Bible. 

These  various  speculations  on  the  trinity,  prove  that 
the  religious  sects  who  profess  to  believe  in  that  doc- 
trine, are  far  from  being  satisfied  on  the  subject.  I  doubt 
whether  any  rational  man  ever  believed  the  doctrine, 
because  faith  is  a  relying  on  evidence,  and  evidence  im- 
plies understanding  ;  that  which  we  do  not  understand 
can  be  no  evidence  to  us.  And  we  certainly  cannot 
understand  how  a  son  can  be  as  old  as  his  father,  nor 
how  three  persons  can  be  but  one  being. 

When  evidence  is  brought  both  for,  and  against  a 
doctrine,  we  are  apt  to  believe  that  which  appears  to 
us  the  stronger.  In  support  of  the  trinity  we  have  the 
opinions  of  men  accompanied  with  their  comments  on 
certain  passages  of  scripture,  from  which  they  think 
the  doctrine  rnay  be  fairly  inferred,  but  there  is  not  one 
text  in  the  Bible  >•  hich  states  the  doctnne  unequivo- 
cally, or  in  language  that  can  mean  nothing  t*lse.  Nor 
is  there  any  thing  in  nature, which  teaches  us  that  three 
^atignal  persons  are  but  one  being,  or  that  a  son  is  3§ 


'46"  TRiXITV. 

old  as  his  father,  but  on  the  contrary,  all  we  hear,  i^ee], 
or  see,  teach  the  reverse. 

To  say  that  lead  is  not  heavy,  or  that  ice  is  not  cold, 
is  not  more  false  than  to  say  that  a  son  is  as  old  as  his 
father.  To  say  that  five  hundred  persons  are  but  one 
being,  is  just  as  true,  as  to  say  that  three  persons  are 
but  one  being.  No  evidence  can  estabhsh  a  self-evi- 
dent falsehood,  nor  overthrow  a  self-evident  truth.  If 
I  should  say  that  heavy  had  is  not  heavy,  the  assertion 
would  go  as  pointedly  to  prove  that  it  is  heavy,  as  that 
it  is  not,  because  by  such  a  contradictoiy  expression  1 
should  assert  the  one  as  much  as  the  other.  So  if  we 
should  find  it  stated  in  scripture  words.that  Jesus  .Christ 
is  the  eternally  begotten  Son  of  God, such  a  statement 
■would  just  furnish  as  strong  evidence  that  he  derived 
his  existence  trom  God,  and  is  younger  than  his  Fa- 
ther, as  that  he  existed  from  all  eternity,  because  the 
word  So/2, when  used  to  distinguish  him  from  his  Father, 
and  the  word  beo-otten,  when  appUed  to  him  as  a  son, 
as  clearly  indicate  that  he  is  younger  than  his  Father, 
and  derived  his  existence  from  him,  as  the  word  eter- 
nally implies  that  he  existed  from  all  eternity.  But 
happily  for  the  credit  of  the  Bible,  these  contradictory 
expressions  are  corruptions  of  CTiristianity,  and  cannot 
be  found  in  the  holy  scriptures. 

It  is  very  d'»ui)tful  wh'-'her  those  who  framed  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity,  did  themselves  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  as  old,  and  m  all  respects  as  great,  as  his 
Father.  It  is  true  that  they  have  plainly  said  so,  but  it 
is  also  true  that  they  have  at  the  same  time,  as  plainly 
ascribed  to  the  Father,  greater  age,  dignity,  and  power, 
than  they  have  to  the  Son.  They  have  called  him  the 
first  person  in  the  trinity.  They  have  said  he  is  Christ's 
Father,  and  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son.  They  no 
doubt  thought  that  to  say  the  Son  is  the  first  person  in 
the  trinity,  or  that  he  begat  the  Father,  or  sent  the 
Father,  w^ould  be  di  idnishiuji  the  real  dignity  of  the 
Father  ;  but  if  they  believed  that  thev  could  apply  such 
language  to  the  Son  without  detracting  from  his  char- 
acter, they  irust  have  regarded  him  as  a  less  dignified 
person  than  his  Father.  If  we  are  to  understand  them 
according  to  the  true  and  common  import  of  the  terms 


TRINlTr.  47 

they  use,  ^re  must  suppose  they  believed  that  God  wa.'r 
older  than  Christ,  because  they  call  him  Christ's  Father, 
and  that  he  was  greater  than  Christ,  because  they  say 
he  sent  Christ :  and  that  the  Son  derived  his  existence 
from  God,  because  they  say  that  God  begat  him.  But 
if  their  words  are  not  to  be  understood  accordmg  to  their 
common  and  true  import,  then  we  do  not  know  what 
they  believed.  It  is  true  they  have  said  that  there 
are  three  coeternal,  coequal  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
but  il^  they  are  not  to  be  understood  Hterally,  they  may 
by  such  expressions  mean  that  tiiere  are  ten,  or  but  two, 
persons  in  the  Godhead.  If  by  the  word  persons,  they 
do  not  mean  rational  beings,  they  may  mean  trees.  If 
by  the  word  tliree,  they  do  not  mean  three,  perhaps  they 
mean  five  hundred.  If  by  the  ',\urd  coequal,  they  do  not 
mean  equal,  they  may  mean  unequal.  If  by  the  word 
Godhead,  they  do  not  mean  a  self-existent  God,  they 
may  mean  the  world,  and  finally,  when  they  say  there 
are  three  coequal  persons  in  the  Godhead,  they  may 
only  mean  that  there  are  five  hundred  unequal  trees  in 
the  world,  or  they  may  mean  something  else  :  but  if 
they  mean  what  they  say,  they  beheve  that  there  are 
three  self-existent  eternal  Gods. 

If  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  are  in  all  respects 
equal  to  each  other,  they  must  all  three  be  finite,  be- 
cause when  one  being  is  equal  with  another  in  size,  age, 
understanding,  or  in  any  other  respect,  it  is  by  measure- 
ment or  computation  ;  and  that  which  is  infinite  cannot 
be  equalled,  because  it  cannot  be  measured,  nor  com- 
puted. If  God  consists  of  three  finite  persons,  he  must 
himself  be  finite,  because  three  finite  persons  cannot 
make  one  mfinite  being.  By  investing  a  son  with  au- 
thority, a  father  may  make  him  equal  to  himself  in  trans- 
acting business,  but  cannot  make  him  equal  to  himself 
in  age  5  so  by  the  authority  that  God  conferred  on  Christ, 
he  was  made  equal  to  him  in  the  work  that  he  gave  him 
to  do,  JLtst  as  an  agent  is  equal  to  his  employer  in  exe- 
cuting the  business  he  is  empowered  to  transact ;  but 
that  does  not  prove  that  he  was  equal  to  God  in  every 
respect. 

If  God  exists  in  three  persons,  and  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God,  it  is  altogether  as  proper  to  call  liim  the 


.48  TRINlTr. 

"the  Son  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the  Son  of  hlmSelt*  as  it 
is  to  call  him  the  Son  of  the  Father. 

The  arguments  that  are  advanced  in  the  present  day 
against  the  trinity,  will  appear  to  future  generations  as 
the  arguments  of  the  prophets  against  the  heathen 
Gods  do  to  us  now  ;  that  is,  efforts  to  disprove  self-evi- 
dent falsehoods.  It  appears  to  us  strange,  that  the 
people  in  that  day  should  have  been  so  ignorant  as  to 
need  whole  chapters  of  argumentation  to  prove  to  them 
that  wood,  or  metal,  made  into  the  shape  of  a  man,  was 
not  a  proper  object  of  worship;  or  that  such  an  image 
could  not  deliver  them  from  their  enemies,  till  their 
houses  with  riches,  nor  save  their  lives. 

So  it  will  appear  strange  to  future  generations,  tliat 
professors  of  Christianity  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
should  need  long  arguments  to  convince  them  that  three 
distinct  persons  are  not  one  being,  or  that  a  son  is  not 
as  old  as  his  father,  or  what  is  still  more  absurd,  that  a 
son  is  not  his  own  father. 

I  have  long  thought  that  as  far  as  Christians  have 
distinct  ideas  on  the  Godhead,  their  faith  is  nearly  the 
same  ;  and  that  our  principal  difference  is  on  certain 
unscriptural  propositions,  which  present  no  distinct 
ideas  to  our  minds.  For  instance,  when  we  say,  "  There 
is  one  God,  and  one  J\Iediator  between  God  and  men^ 
file  man  Christ  Jesus,''''  the  proposition  conveys  distinct 
ideas  to  our  minds,  and  we  all  agree  that  it  is  literally 
trU3.  But  when  it  is  affirmed  that  three  coeternal  per- 
sons are  but  one  God,  the  former  clause  of  the  pro- 
position presents  to  our  minds  the  idea  of  three  coeternal 
beings,  but  the  latter  clause  contradicts  it,  and  asserts 
that  they  are  but  one  being.  Thus  the  two  ideas  being 
blended  in  our  minds,  neither  of  them  is  distinct  from 
the  other,  and  hence  become  a  subject  of  disputation. 
They  are  like  the  figure  3,  written  right  on  the  figure  1, 
thus,  (B).  It  becomes  a  subject  of  disputation,  one  calls 
it  three,  another  calls  it  one,  a  third  says  it  is  the  letter 
B,  and  the  fourth  argues  that  it  is  nothing  but  a  blot. 
But  if  they  had  been  written  distinct  and  legible,  there 
would  have  been  no  dispute  about  them. 

We  all  agree  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  Go^, 
because  the  proposition  is  clearly  taught  in  the  sciip- 


tnrs-nr.  4.& 

hirfes,  and  conveys  distinct  ideas  to  our  niinds.  But 
when  it  is  stated  that  he  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  the 
ideas  are  no  longer  distinct :  the  word  e/er«fl/ holds  him 
Up  as  self-existent,  but  the  word  Son  clearly  indicates 
that  his  existence  is  derived  ;  so  the  two  ideas  being 
blended  in  our  minds,  we  are  thrown  into  confusion-, 
and  begin  to  dispute  on  the  subject.  These  unscrip- 
tural,  contradictory  propositions  among  christians,  like 
an  uncertain  sound  of  a  trumpet  in  the  field  of  battle, 
throw  the  whole  ranks  into  confusion.  That  ministers 
uf  religion  should  divide  the  church  of  God,  and  induce 
one  part  of  it  to  persecute  the  other,  merely  to  keep  in 
credit  these  inconsistent  propositions,  which  they  them- 
selves acknov/ledge  are  not  in  the  Bible,  appears  very 
astonishing  to,  and  is  the  cause  of  great  grief  among 
the  lovers  of  truth  and  virtue. 

I  will  now  propose  a  plan  of  reconciliation  between 
the  disputers  on  this  subject.  The  plan  is  this  : — Let 
us  believe  every  word  relative  to  Father,  Son,  and  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  which  we  find  clearly  stated  in  the  scriptures  : 
and  never  contend  for,  nor  dispute  about  any  word, 
.sentence,  or  form  of  speech,  relative  to  either  of  them, 
but  what  we  find,  word  tor  word,  in  the  Bible.  It  seems 
to  me  that  those  who  prefer  the  word  of  God  to  all  human 
writings,  and  v/ish  to  follow  after  peace  with  all  men, 
can  have  no  objection  to  this  plan  :  yet  I  know  that 
bigoted  Trinitarians  will  not  agree  to  it,  because  that 
moment  they  consent  to  it  they  give  up  the  doctrine  of 
the  trinity  ;  for  they  know  that  not  one  of  the  leading- 
phrases,  which  they  use  to  express  that  system,  is  in 
the  Bible.  It  would  be  well  for  every  member  of  the 
Christian  Church  to  propose  this  plan  to  his  Trinitarian 
neighbor;  if  it  be  acceded  to,  there  will  be  an  end  to 
the  disagreeable  controversy;  but  if  the  Trinitarian 
should  reject  it,  he,  by  so  doing,  will  fairly  acknowledge 
that  his  doctrine  of  trinity  is  not  tlie  language  of  the 
Bible. 

Although  the  pious  Trinitarians  admit  in  theory,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  and  only  God,  yet  thev 
tleny  it  in  practice,  because  when  they  attempt  to  wor- 
ship God,  they  describe  him  in  their  prayers  as  the  su- 
preme Judge,  and  Jesus  as  a  Mediator  betv.een  liim 
5 


30  TRIXITV. 

and  men,  praving  to  his  Father  for  sinners.  I  shall 
conclude  this  chapter  with  a  short  address  to  Trinita- 
rians. 

Dear  Brethren  : — If  by  the  phrase,  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  you  do  not  mean  three  beings,  three  offi- 
ces, three  attributes,  three  modes  of  existence,  nor  any 
other  three  such  things,  what  do  you  mean  ]  If  you 
can  give  no  definition  of  the  terms  by  which  you  ex- 
press your  faith,  you  do  not  know  what  you  express 
when  you  use  those  terms.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  trin- 
ity is  an  inexphcable  mystery  that  you  cannot  possibly 
understand,  and  if  you  cannot  explain  the  terms  by 
which  you  attempt  to  express  it,  then  you  neither  know 
^vhat  you  speak,  nor  whereof  you  affirm.  JS'ow  in  the 
name  of  common  sense,  I  a.-k  why  do  you  make  those 
expressions,  which  you  acknowledge  are  unintelligi- 
ble to  yourselves,  essential  articles  of  religion,  Vvhen^ 
at  the  same  time,  you  know  they  are  not  in  the  Bible? 
And  in  the  name  of  Christian  charity,  I  ask  Vv  hy  do 
you  reject  from  your  fellowship  pious  Christians,  whose 
morals  are  irreproachable,  and  stigmatize  them  as  in- 
fidels and  enemies  of  the  cross,  merely  because  their 
minds  are  not  capable  of  receiving  a  doctrine,  that 
you  say  is  incomprehensible  to  your  own  minds,  or 
because  they  refuse  to  express  their  faith  in  certain  un- 
scriptural  terms,  the  meaning  of  which  you  confess  you 
do  not  understand  yourselves  1  And  in  the  presence 
of  Jesus  Christ,  before  whose  judgment  seat  we  must 
all  stand,  I  ask  when  did  he  authorize  any  set  of  men 
to  go  into  all  the  world,  and  teach  all  nations  that  it" 
they  did  not  believe  in  a  trinity  of  three  self-existent 
coequal,  coessential,  coeternal  persons,  each  one  of 
whom  is  God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  that  they 
should  all  be  damned  1 

Now,  brethren,  as  I  propose  these  questions  in 
love,  I  hope  you  will  attend  to  them  with  candor,  and 
■investigate  the  subject  with  that  diligence  and  hon- 
esty, which  become  rational  beings  inquiring  into  the 
things  that  belong  to  their  eternal  state.  As  error 
never  can  profit  us,  we  should  in  all  our  religious  in- 
quiries make  truth  our  aim,  and  the  Bible  our  guide.— 
-Maj  God,  by  his  holy  spirit,  guide  us  into  all  truth. 


TR15ITV.  5J 


CHAPTER    III. 


\-HE  EVIDENCES  THAT  HATE  BEEN  BROUGHT  TO  PROVE  HIE  DOC- 
TRINE OF  THE  TRINITY  E."iAMINED. 


The  following  passage  has  frequently  been  brought 
to  prove  the  doctrine  of  trinity.  "  Jesus  also  being 
baptized,  and  praying,  the  heaven  was  opened.  Antl 
the  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove 
upon  him,  and  a  voice  came  from  heaven,  which  said, 
th  >'i  art  my  beloved  Son  ;  in  thee  1  am  well  pleased.*' 
Luke  iii.  21,  22.  They  suppose  that,  because  the 
Father  spoke  from  heaven,  and  the  Spirit  descended  on 
Christ  in  the  likeness  of  a  dove,  that  therefore  there 
mu.-t  be  a  trinity  of  three  coequal,  coessential,  coeternal 
persons  in  the  Godhead.  But  i  think  this  a  most  uri- 
warra: liable  conclusion,  because  the  text  says  nothing 
about  equality,  nor  eternity  :  for  all  it  teaches  to  the  con- 
^rarw,  Christ  n^^v  he  no  "T^iiter  thsn  Mo3S3,  S.nd  th** 
Holy  Ghost,  if  it  is  a  person  may  be  as  much  inferior  to 
the  Father  as  a  dove  is  to  a  man. 

This  text  proves  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two 
distinct  persons,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  that  he 
was  baptized,  that  God  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  him, 
and  wa>  well  pleased  with  him,  but  it  by  no  means 
proves  any  thing  relative  to  his  equality  with  the  Father. 
If  this  passage  is  urged  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
a  distinct  being  from  God,  it  will  not  prove  that  it  is  a 
distinct  person,  but  will  only  prove  that  it  is  a  dove. 

If  I  should  assert  that  a  dolphin  is  a  sea-fowl,  and 
then  to  prove  my  assertion  bring  forward  a  witness,  who 
would  testify  that  he  had  seen  a  dolphin,  and  that  it  had 
a  bodily  shape  like  a  tish,  surely  no  man  in  his  senses 
would  say  that  by  this  testimony  I  had  proved  n)y  as- 
sertion ;  yet  it  would  prove  that  a  dolphin  is  a  sea-fowl, 
just  about  as  much  as  the  above  text  proves  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  a  person. 

If  the  fact  that  G  <d's  Spirit  has  appeared  in  a  bodily 
shape,  wiJlprove  thatitis  a  person,  coequal,  coessential, 


52  IRINrTT, 

and  coeteriial  with  God,  then  there  must  be  at  least  ten 
persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  because  in  Rev.  iv.  5,  Johii 
says,  "  And  thei^e  were  seven  lamps  of  fire  burning  be- 
fore the  throne,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God.'' 
In  this  text  it  is  as  positively  asserted  that  God  ha^ 
seven  Spirits,  and  that  they  all  appeared  in  a  bodily 
shape,  as  the  record  of  Christ's  baptism  proves  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  dove.  These 
seven,  and  the  Father,  and  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  dove,  viill  make  ten. 

Jotin  says,  the  Lamb  has  "  seven  horns,  and  seven 
eyes,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God  sent  forth  into 
all  the  "earth."  Rev.  v.  6.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  that 
appeared  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove,  is  a  distinct  per- 
son in  the  Godhead,  then  these  seven  horns,  and  sever?, 
eyes  must  also  be  distinct  persons  in  the  Godhead,  be- 
cause they  are  as  much  called  the  Spirits  of  God,  as  that 
which  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  dove  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  God.  These  seven  with  the  other  ten  would 
make  seventeen  persons  in  the  Godhead. 

When  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  the  apostles,  "  there 

. ,1     „„*^    *1-^v^.    ^l^,.nr>   trxna-MPSi   \\\^q   ^S   of   firO.  aud 

it  sat  upon  each  of  them.'^  Acts  ii.  3.  Here  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  represented  as  being  seen  in  twelve  distinct 
bodily  appearances  :  and  if  its  being  seen  in  the  appear- 
ance of  a  dove  will  prove  that  it  is  one  distinct  person, 
then  its  being  seen  in  the  appearance  of  twelve  cloven 
tongues  will  prove  that  it  is  twelve  distinct  persons. 
These  tv/elve  added  to  the  other  seventeen  will  make 
twenty-nine  persons  in  the  Godhead.  I  wish  to  take 
no  undue  advantage  in  this  argument.  I  ask  all  my 
readers  to  say,  whether  it  does  not  appear  as  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  God  is  in  the  shape  of  a  lamp  of  fire,  or 
a  cloven  tongue  of  fire,  as  a  feathered  fowl  1 

God's  ordinary  way  of  teaching  his  creatures  is  by 
hearing,  but  in  these  instances  he  added  that  of  seeing. 
The  appearance  of  the  Spirit  descending  on  Jesus  in 
the  hkeness  of  a  dove  was,  no  doubt,  designed  to  show 
his  innocence  and  qualify  him  to  perform  the  work  of  a. 
Mediator.  The  seven  lamps  of  fire,  and  the  seven  eyes 
were  probably  intended  to  represent  seven  communica= 
Mq  perfections  of  God  displayed  ia  tlie  gospel  j  and  qa- 


TRINITY.  5^ 

graved  on  Christ  the  chief  corner  stone  of  God's  spiri- 
tual building,  and  called  by  a  prophet,  "  The  eyes  ol 
the  Lord,  which  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole  earth.'* 
Zech.  iii.  9.    chap.  iv.  10. 

The  apostles'  commission  to  baptize,  has  been  often 
quoted  to  prove  the  trinity  doctrine.  "  Go  ye  therefore 
and  teach  ail  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Mat. 
xxvhi.  19.  The  Greek  word  eis,  uhich  is  here  rendered 
in,  would  be  more  literally  rendered  into.  Being  bap- 
tized in  or  into  the  name  of  a/iy  person,  or  into  any 
thing,  is  no  proof  that  such  person  or  thing  is  a  God. 
or  an  object  of  worship,  but  it  simply  signilies  that  the 
pers  )ns  so  baptized  protessed  their  belief  in  the  person, 
or  thing  into  which  they  were  baptized  ;  which  will  ap- 
pear from  the  following  passages  of  scripture.  "  And 
lie  said  unto  thenijUnto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ]  And 
they  said  unto  John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John 
verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying, 
unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is  on  Christ  Jesus.  When 
they  heard  this^  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus."  Act.  xxi.  3,  4,  5.  The  word  rendered 
unto  John's  baptism,  in  the  third  verse  of  this  chapter 
is  the  same  Greek  word,  which  in  the  fifth  verse  is  ren- 
dered in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  By  being  bap- 
tized unto  John's  baptism,  those  persons  did  not  mean 
that  it  was  a  God,  they  only  meant  that  by  receiving 
baptism  at  the  hand  of  John,  they  had  professed  their 
belief  on  one  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on 
Christ  Jesus.  And  when  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  they  professed  their  behef  that 
he  had  come,  and  conferred  the  Holy  Spirit  on  his  dis- 
ciples. 

Paul  says,  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his 
•death?"  Rom.  vi.  4.  By  being  baptized  into  his  death, 
Paul  did  not  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  his  death 
was  a  God.  He  only  meant  that  by  baptism  they  had  pro- 
fessed their  belief  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ. 


34  TRINITT. 

The  Jews  ihat  came  out  of  Egypt  "  Were  ali  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  1  Cor. 
X.  2.  The  Greek  word  which  is  translated  unto  in 
this  text  is  the  same  Greek  word,  which  in  Mat.  xxviii. 
19,  is  rendered  t?i.  Being  baptized  w?i/o  Moses  does* 
not  prove  that  he  is  a  God,  coequal  and  coeternal  w'ith 
the  Father,  but  it  simply  proves  that  the  persons 
who  were  so  baptized,  professed  their  belief  in  his  doc- 
trine and  authority. 

In  teaching  that  Christians  are  all  different  members 
of  Christ's  body,  Paul  says,  "  For  by  one  spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body."  1.  Cor.  xii.  13.  By  being 
baptized  into  one  body,  the  apostle  did  not  mean  that 
this  body  was  a  God,  but  he  meant  that  by  baptism 
they  professed  the  faith,  and  were  brought  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  one  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  which  is  his 
church. 

That  being  baptized  into  a  person,  or  thing,  only 
means  that  by  baptism,  those  who  were  so  baptized 
made  a  profession  of  faith  in  that  person  or  thing,  ap- 
pears t>om  the  following  text.  "  For  ye  are  all  the 
children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ."  Gal.  iii.  26,  27.  In  all  these  passages  the 
words  in,  into,  and  unto,  are  the  same  in  the  Greek, 
From  these  scriptures  it  is  evident  that  by  being  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
we  should  only  understand  that  in  submitting  to  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism,  people  took  on  them  the  profession 
of  that  religion,  which  was  originated  by  the  Father, 
communicated  through  the  Son,  and  impressed  on  their 
hearts  by  God's  Holy  Spirit  :  or  in  other  wordF,  that 
they  protessed  to  believe  in  the  religion  of  the  Father. 
Son, and  Holy  Spirit.  The  baptismal  commission  proves 
nothing  about  three  coeternal  persons  intheGodhead. 

The  conclusion  of  Paul's  second  epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians has  beeu  urged  in  support  of  the  trinity  doc- 
trine. "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
be  with  you  all."  This  does  not  prove  that  Christ  is 
coequal,  oi'  coeternal  with  the  Father  ;  nor  does  it 
prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  distinct  person  from 
God»    If  all  three  of  these  are  equally  God,  why  is  but 


TRINITV,  OO 

one  of  them  called  God  1  If  the  bare  mention  ot 
Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  connexion  with  God  will 
prove  them  to  be  persons,  coeternal  with  the  Father, 
then  Paul's  love  must  be  a  person  coeternal  with 
Christ,  because  in  concluding  his  first  letter  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, he  says,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  be  whh  you.  My  love  be  with  you  all  in  Christ 
Jesus." 

Paul  concludes  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  in  these 
words,  "  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  ever.  Amen.''  Here  he  mentions  Christ  in 
contradistinction  from  the  only  wiseGod  :  but  if  Christ 
was  the  infiniteGod,  and  possessed  Vvisdom  of  himself 
independently,  he  could  not  in  truth  be  distinguished 
from  the  oiily  wise  God.  If  Christ  were  the  only  wise 
God,  the  sense  of  this  text  would  be  this,  "  To  God 
only  wise,  be  glory,  through  God  only  wise  forever. 
Amen." 

^'  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  Heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  these 
three  are  one."  1  John  v.  7.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that 
this  verse  is  an  interpolation  ;  but  even  if  it  be  genuine, 
it  will  by  no  means  establish  the  common  system  of 
the  trinity.  It  will  prove  that  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  one  in  some  sense  or  other, 
but  it  will  not  prove  that  they  are  three  distinct  co- 
equal, coessential,  coeternal  persons.  The  word  equal, 
nor  the  word  eternal,  is  not  in  the  text.  If  the  Hoi} 
Ghost  is  nothing  more  than  the  spirit  of  God,  then  ii 
cannot  be  a  dstinct  person  from  God,  any  more  than 
the  spirit  of  a  man  is  a  distinct  person  from  him,  but  as 
a  man  and  his  spirit  are  but  one  being,  so  God  and  his 
spirit  are  not  two  beings.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not 
simply  God's  spirit,  but  is  a  distinct  being  from  the  Fa- 
ther, and  if  the  word  is  Jesus  Christ,  another  distinct 
being  i>om  the  Father,  then  I  will  conclude  that  the) 
are  one  in  the  same  sense  that  Christ  and  his  Father 
are  one,  and  this  the  Saviour  himself  explains  in  the 
following  passage  :  "  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone  ; 
but  for  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through 
their  word  :  that  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as  thou,  Father. 
art  in  ro?j  £rn4  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in 


Oij  TRINITY. 

US  :  that  the  world  may  beheve  that  thou  hast  sevd  uic, 
And  the  glory  which  thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given 
thein  ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one  ;  I  in 
them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfect  in  one  : 
and  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou  hast  sent  me, 
and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me."  John  xvii. 
20. — 23.  From  this  text  it  appears  that  Christ,  and  his 
Father  are  one  in  the  same  sense  that.  Christians  are 
one  with  him,  and  with  each  other ;  hence  it  is  evident 
that  their  being  one  d*  es  not  prove  that  they  are  in 
every  respect  equal  with  each  other,  because  it  is  well 
known  that  although  Christians  are  one  in  Christ,  and 
in  union  and  fellowship  with  each  other  even  as,  that  is, 
in  the  same  sense,  that  Christ  and  his  Father  are  one, 
still  they  are  not  as  great  as  Christ,  nor  in  every  res- 
pect equal  with  one  another.  I  will  now  state  my  rea- 
sons for  believing  that  this  disputed  text  is  a  forgery. 

Adam  Clarke,  the  great  Blethodist  comm.entator,  who 
is  perhaps  the  foremost  Trinitarian  Critick  in  Biblical 
literature  of  the  present  age,  and  whose  means  of  in- 
formation on  the  subject  no  one  doubts,  says  "  It  is 
wanting  in  every  manuscript  of  this  epistle  written  before 
the  invention  of  printing,  one  excepted,  the  Codex 
Montfortii,  in  Trinity  College,  Dublm  :  the  others  whicii 
omit  this  verse,  amount  to  or.e  hundred  and  twelve." 
lie  concludes  his  note  on  the  text  in  these  words: 
*'  Though  a  conscientious  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
ever  blessed,  holy,  and  undivided  Trinity,  and  in  the 
proper  and  essential  Divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
which  doctrines  I  have  defended  by  many,  and  even  new- 
arguments  in  the  course  ^of  this  work,  I  cannot  help 
doubting  the  authenticity  of  the  text  in  question."  See 
Clarke's  Commentary  on  1  John,  v.  7. 

Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  researches  among  the  Assyrean 
Christians  in  the  East  says,  that  this  text  is  wanting  in 
all  their  ancient  manuscripts.  In  the  new  translation 
by  Campbell,  Doddridge,  and  McNight,  which  has 
been  recently  reprinted  by  Alexander  Campbell,  ol" 
BuflUlo,  Virginia,  this  text  is  rejected  as  spurious. — 
Two  considerations  give  this  testimony  great  weight  in 
my  mind.  The  first  is,  that  the  men  who  made  the 
ti:anslationj  and  the  one  that  printed  it  in  tills  couiiliy. 


TRINITV,  5y 

iiave  all  been  famed,  and  I  think  justly,  for  learning  and 
talents  of  the  first  order.  The  second  is,  that,  as  the) 
Ivere  all  Trinitarians,  nothing  but  the  clearest  conviction 
of  its  being  an  interpolation  could  have  induced  them 
to  expunge  a  text  which  had  been  so  universally  rehed 
on  to  prove  that  doctrine. 

In  the  improved  version  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
find  the  following  note  on  this  disputed  passage. — - 
■"  This  text,  concerning  the  heavenly  witnesses,  is  not 
contained  in  any  Greek  manuscript  which  was  written 
earlier  than  the  fifteenth  century.  2.  Nor  in  any  Latin, 
manuscript  earlier  than  the  ninth  century:  3.  It  is 
not  found  in  any  of  the  ancient  version?,  4.  It  is  not 
cited  by  any  of  the  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers,  though 
to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  they  have  cited  the 
words  both  before  and  after  this  text.  5.  It  is  not  cited, 
by  any  of  the  early  Latin  fathers,  even  when  the  subject 
on  which  they  treat  would  naturally  have  led  them  to 
appeal  to  its  authority.  6.  It  is  first  cited  by  Vigilius 
Tapsensis,  a  Latm  writer  of  no  credit,  in  the  latter  end 
of  the  fifth  century,  and  by  whom  it  is  suspected  to 
have  been  forged.  7.  It  has  been  omitted  as  spuri- 
ous in  many  editions  of  the  ISew  Testament,  since  tiilT 
Reformation  :  in  the  two  first  of  Erasmus,  in  those  oi 
Aldus,  Colinaeus,  Zwinglius,  and  lately  of  Griesbach. 
8.  It  was  omitted  by  Luther  m  his  German  version. — - 
In  the  old  English  Bibles  of  Henry  YIII.,  Edward  YI., 
and  Elizabeth;  it  was  printed  in  small  types,  or  includ- 
ed in  brackets  ;  but  between  the  years  1566  and  1580, 
it  began  to  be  printed  as  it  now  stands  ;  by  whose  au- 
thority it  is  not  known." 

The  following  text  has  been  urged  to  prove  the  exis- 
tence of  a  trinity.  "  That  their  hearts  might  be  com.- 
forted,  being  knit  together  in  love,  and  unto  ail  riches 
of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding,  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the  Father,  and 
of  Christ."  Col.  ii.  2.  Trinitarians  think  that  as  the  Fa- 
dier  and  Son  are  each  mentioned  separately  in  this  text, 
that  therefore  the  word  God  must  refer  to  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  hence  conch^de  that  there  are  three  coequal, 
roessential,  and  coeternal  persons  in  the  Godhead.  1 
»jo  HQt  think  this  text  proves  that  there  are  three  pe.V- 


.?8-  TEIMTY. 

sons  in  the  Godliead,  but  even  if  it  does,  it  proves  vn^-. 
thing  about  their  dignity,  equality,  nor  eternity.  Fox 
all  this  text  teaches  to  the  contrary,  they  may  all  three 
be  of  different  ages  and  dignity. 

But  how  do  ihey  know  that  the  word  God  in  this  text 
refers  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  Scripture  does  not 
say  so.  And  it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  as  much  evi- 
dence to  prove  that  it  refer?^  to  Moses,  as  there  is  to 
prove  that  it  refers  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  Moses  is  call- 
ed a  God  and  a  Mediator  in  the  Bible.  I  think  the  word 
God  in  the  above  text  alludes  to  the  Father.  A  mys- 
tery is  a  secret.  And  the  my-^tery  of  God,  spoken  of  in 
the  text  is,  no  doubt,  the  tailing  of  the  Gentiles  and  the 
revelation  of  God  and  I  hrist,  in  the  relation  they  bear 
to  each  other  as  Fathe^'•  and  Son,  which  had  been  a 
mystery,  or  secret,  trom  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
but  as  the  whole  Gospel  plan  was  hottomed  on  that 
relation,  it  had  no.v  become  necessary  that  it  should  be 
revealed.  Hence  it  is  first  called  the  mystery  of  God, 
to  show  that  the  whole  plan  originated  in  him.  Se- 
condly it  is  called  the  mystery  of  tht^  Father,  to  show 
that  God  bears  the  relation  to  Christ  that  a  father  does 
to  a  son.  And,  thirdly,  it  is  called  the  mystery  of 
Christ,  because  he  is  the  Mediator  through  whom  it  in 
revealed. 

Although  the  trinity  doctrine  is  now  popular,  and  a 
large  majority  of  the  Christians  call  God  by  the  name 
of  trinity,  and  triune,  yet  when  the  Jews  shall  be  re- 
stored to  their  own  country,  and  the  Millennium  es- 
stablished,  "  The  Lord  shall  l)e  King  over  all  the 
earth  :  in  that  day  there  shall  be  one  Lord,  and  his  name 
one."  Zech.  xiv.  9.  If  God's  name  shall  be  one,  it 
will  not  be  three.  A«?ne  is  generally  significant  of 
character,  and  if  God  is  really  a  trinity  of  three  persons, 
and  if  it  is  essential  t »  the  salvation  of  men  so  to  be- 
lieve of  him,  why  did  the  prophet  say  that  his  name 
^^hall  be  one  ? 


tRiNITY,  •  ^^ 


CHAPTER  IV 


ARGL'MENTS    IN'    FAVOR    OF    A    TRINITY    EXAMINED, 

The  Trinitarians  try  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  trinity 
rom  the  Hebrew  word  Elohiin,  or  as  it  is  written  with- 
out points,  Aleim,  which  is  the  first  word  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  that  is  tanslated  God.  They  think,  that  as  Aleini 
lias  a  plural  termination,  there  must  be  a  plurality  of 
persons  in  God.  But  if  we  allow  this  argument,  all  the 
weight  that  Trinitarians  append  to  it,  it  will  by  no 
means  prove  their  system,  because  it  may  be  the  dual 
number,  and  of  course  only  refer  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  or  if  it  is  plural,  it  may  only  mean  two  ;  be- 
sides let  it  be  what  number  it  may,  it  proves  nothing 
about  equality,  nor  eternity  of  persons. 

Every  scholar  knows,  and  no  Christian  will  deny, 
that  Aleim  is  a  scriptural  nanie  of  God  ;  therefore  if 
the  word  Aleim  means  a  plurality,  it  must  signify  a  plu- 
rality of  Gods.  If  the  word  man  is  the  right  name  of 
one  male  person  of  m.ature  age,  then  the  word  men, 
which  is  the  plural  of  man,  must  signity  a  plurality  of 
such  person  ;  so  if  the  word  AI,  in  the  singular,  signi- 
lies  one  self-existent  God,  then  Aleim,  which  is  the  plu- 
ral of  c5/,  must  denote  a  plurality  of  self-existent  Gods, 
and,  for  any  thin**  the  uord  Aleim  teaches  to  the  con- 
trary, that  plurality  of  Gods  may  be  two,  three,  or  fiy^ 
thousand.  But,  as  no  pious  Trinitarian  will  acknowl- 
edge that  he  believes  in  m.ore  than  one  self-existent 
God,  they  certainly  must  see  that  the  argument  proves 
too  much  for  them,  and  therefore  proves  nothing  to  their 
purpose. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  Trinitarian  criticism  gots 
as  much  to  support  the  heathen  Polytheism  as  th6 
Romish  trinity,  because  if  there  is  a  plurality  of  Gods, 
there  may  as  well  be  thirty  thousand  as  but  three. 

If  God  exists  in  three  persons,  and  Aleim  is  the 
name  of  those  three  persons  taken  collectively,  then  it. 


60  TRINlTV. 

cannot  be  the  name  of  either  of  them  falven  separately. 
Of  course  the  whole  triumvirate,  or  Aleim,  did  not  send 
their  Son  to  save  sinners,  it  was  only  the  first  person  of 
the  Aleim,  or  trinity,  that  did  so ;  nor  did  the  Aleim, 
that  is  the  trinity,  die  for  sinners,  it  was  only  the  second 
person  of  the  Aleim,  or  trinity,  that  did  so.  If  it  takes 
the  whole  trinity  to  constitute  the  supreme  God,  then 
Christ,  the  second  person,  who  died  for  sinners,  must 
have  lacked  two  thirds  of  being  the  supreme  God. 

In  the  Hebrew,  as  well  as  in  all  other  languages,  a 
King,  an  Emperor,  or  any  other  person  of  great  dignity, 
is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  plural  number.  Thus  the 
King  of  Spain  says,  "  JVe,  Ferdinand  the  seventh.^^ — 
The  King  of  France  says,  "  IVe^  Charles  the  tenth.''' 
The  Emperors  of  Russia  say,  '•  JVe,  Aiexander,^^  or 
"  We,  JVicholas."  Artaxerxes,  the  King  of  Babylon,, 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  plural,  thus,  "  The  letter 
which  ye  sent  unto  us  hath  been  plainly  read  before 
me."  Ezra.  iv.  18.  King  Zedekiah  speaks  of  him,- 
self  in  the  plural,  thus,  "  As  the  Lord  liveth,  that  made 
us  this  soul,  I  will  not  put  thee  to  death.''  Jer.  xxxviii. 
16.  Christ  speaks  of  himself  in  the  plural,  thus, 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  we  speak  that  we  do 
know,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen  ;  and  ye  receive 
not  our  witness.  If  I  have  told  you  earthly  things,  and 
ye  beheve  not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of 
heavenly  things?'  I  have  never  heard  an  advocate  of 
this  doctrine  affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  separately  consid- 
ered, is  the  v.hole  trinity  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  they  all 
assert  that  he  is  the  second  person  of  the  trinity.  If, 
then,  Christ  can  speak  of  himself  in  the  plural  number, 
and  still  be  one  individual  person,  and  not  a  whole  trin- 
ity, why  may  not  God  the  Father  speak  of  himself  in 
the  plural,  and  at  the  same  time  be  only  one  single  per- 
son? In  Wilson's  Hebrew  grammar  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing rule  relative  to  Hebrew  nouns: — "  Words  that 
express  dominion,  dignity,  majesty,  are  commonly  put 
in  the  plural."  Therefore  the  word  Jileim  being  applied 
to  any  being  of  great  dignity,  is  no  proof  that  such  be- 
ing contains  in  himself  a  plurahty  of  persons.  The 
Lord  applies  this  word  to  Moses,  hence  he  says,  <*  See 
1  have  made  thee  a  God  [Heb.  Aleim]  to  Pharoah."'— 


TRINITY.  bi 

JExod.  vii.  1.  Surely  Moses  did  not  consist  of  three 
persons.  Tiie  children  of  Heih  gave  the  same  title 
to  Abraham ;  when  he  applied  to  them  for  a  burying 
place,  they  said,  *'  Thou  art  a  mighty  prince  among  us." 
Gen.  xxiii.  6.  In  the  Hebrew  it  reads,  a  mighty  Aleim 
among  us  :  notwithstanding  this,  Abraham  wjxs  but  one 
person. 

The  golden  calf  that  Aaron  made  is  mentioned  in 
the  plural  number.  "  And  they  said  these  be  thy  God&, 
O  Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  Exod.  xxxii.  4,  8,  31.  I  now  ask,  were 
there  three  persons  in  the  golden  calf? 

"  Then  the  Lords  of  the  Philistines  gathered  them 
together  for  to  offer  a  great  sacrifice  unto  Dagon  their 
God,  and  to  rejoice  ;  for  they  said,  our  God  hath  de- 
livered Samson,  our  enemy,  into  our  hand.  And  when 
the  people  saw  him  they  praised  their  God  ;  for  they 
said  our  God  hath  delivered  unto  our  hands  our  enemy." 
Judg.  xvi.  23,  24.  In  every  place  where  Dagon  is 
called  God  in  this  passage,  the  Hebrew  is  Aleim.  Al- 
though Dagon  is  called  Aleim,  there  is  no  probability 
that  his  worshippers  regarded  him  as  a  triune  God, or  as 
a  being  that  consisted  of  three  coequal  persons. 

Because  that  they  have  forsaken  me, and  have  worship- 
ped Ashtoreth  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians,  Chemosh 
the  God  of  the  Moabites,  and  Milchom  the  God  of  the 
children  of  Ammon."  I  King.  xi.  33.  In  each  of 
these  places,  where  God  occurs  in  the  Enghsh,  the 
Hebrew  is  Aleim.  Although  the  heathen  believed  in 
many  Gods,  we  have  no  evidence  that  they  thought  each 
of  them  was  three  persons.  Each  of  these  Gods,  that 
is  here  called  an  Aleim,  was,  no  doubt,  believed  by  its 
worshippers  to  be  a  demon,  that  is,  the  ghost  of  one  man, 
or  one  woman. 

In  the  above  text  the  original  is  not  Aleim,  but  Alei^ 
i  he  mem  being  dropped,  because  in  each  place  it  stands 
in  regimine,  or  construction,  with  the  following  noun, 
but  still  it  is  the  same  word,  and  if  it  was  not  placed 
in  regimine  with  the  Zidonians,  the  Moabites,  nor 
the  children  of  Ammon,  the  Hebrew  word  would  be 
literally  Aleim.  Although  this  is  well  known  to  eveiy 
6 


62  TRINiTT. 

tyro  hebrean,  I  mention  it  to  take  away  occasion  fioni 
them  who  may  desire  occasion  to  cavil. 

That  the  word  Aleim  does  not  mean  a  pkirality 
of  persons,  is  evident  from  the  following  text,  "Hear, 
O  Israel :  the  Lord  our  God  [Heb.  Aleim]  is  one 
Lord."  Deut.  vi.  4.  If  it  is  essentially  necessary 
for  us  to  believe  that  the  Lord  our  Aleim  is  three 
persons,  why  did  Moses  tell  us  that  he  is  one  Lord  ? 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  our  Lord  quotes  this  very 
text,  and  mentions  the  word  God,  by  a  singular  noun  in 
the  Greek,  thus  :  "  Hear,  O  Israel:  the  Lord  our  God 
(Gr.  Theos)  is  one  Lord."  Mark.  xii.  29.  If  the 
word  Aleim  had  been  designed  to  express  a  plurality  of 
persons  in  God,  surely  Christ  uould  not  have  translat- 
ed it  by  a  singular  noun.  If  it  is  a  truth  that  God  was 
six  days  making  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  Christ 
would  not  translate  it  three  days.  If  Jonah  was  in  tho 
belly  of  the  fish  three  days,  the  blessed  Saviour  would 
not  say  that  he  was  in  u  but  one  day.  If  the  word  Aleim 
in  the  above  text  had  been  placed  there  to  teach  that 
there  are  a  trinity  of  person^  in  God,  Christ,  who  came 
to  bear  witness  t  the  truth,  mstead  of  explaining  it  to 
the  people,  has  wholly  misrepresented  it.  A  Trinita- 
rian minister,  if  he  would  undertake  to  explain  the  text 
at  all,  would  tell  the  people  that  the  word  Aleim  signi- 
fies three  persons  m  the  Godhead,  coequal,  coessential, 
and  coeternal ;  but  Christ  says,  that  Aleim  is  Theos, 
God  in  the  singular,  that  is,  •'  one  Lord." 

If  it  be  argued  that  Christ  spoke  in  Hebrew,  and 
therefore  did  not  translate  Aleim  by  Theos ;  I  answer, 
that  his  biographer,  Mark,  who  certainly  understood  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  master's  meaning,  has  so 
rendered  the  word  as  quoted  by  Christ :  therefore  it  re- 
mains a  fact,  that  i^  Aleim  implies  a  plurality  of  persons 
in  God,  Christ  has  misinterpreted  the  ward,  or  else 
Mark  has  misrepresented  his  master's  speech. 

If  the  word  Aleim  signifies  three  coeternal  persons, 
there  must  be  at  least  six  such  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
because  in  the  following  passage  Christ  is  called  Aleim 
ift  contradistinction  from  another  person,  who  is  also 
called  Aleim.  "  Thy  throne,  0  God  [Heb.  Aleim]  is 
forgvei  and  ever :  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  is  a  right 


TRINITY.  6k3 

sceptre.  Thou  lovest  righteousness,  and  hatest  wick- 
edness :  therefore  Gcjd,  thy  God,  [Heb.  Aleim,  thy 
Aleim]  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  thy  fellows."  Psal.  xlv.  6,  7.  If  the  word  Aleim 
signifies  a  trinity,  then  in  the  above  text  we  have  one 
trinity  anointuig  another  trinity  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  their  fellows,  that  is,  I  suppose. above  then-  fellow 
trinities,  because  if  they  are  all  uncreated  persons,  it 
cannot  mean  above  their  lellow  creatures.  But  if  one 
of  these  trinities  is  anointed  above  the  others,  how  can 
they  all  be  equal  i 

Saint  Paul,  who  was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  an 
excellent  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholar ,  well  acquainted 
w^ith  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  and  also  divinely  inspired, 
translates  the  above  text  into  Greek  by  the  singular 
nouu  Theos,  God.  Thus  he  says,  "  Thy  throne,  0 
God,  [Gr.  Theos]  is  forever  and  ever  ;  a  sceptre  of 
righteousness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  :  Thou 
hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  iniquity  ;  therefore 
God,  even  ihy  C^nr\.  [Gr.  O' Theos,  O'Tlieos  sow.]  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fel- 
lows."    Heb.  i.  8,  9. 

If  Paul  knew  that  the  word  Aleim  signified  a  plurality 
of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  ai'd  that  it  is  essential  to 
our  salvation  that  we  believe  so,  he  has  handled  the 
word  of  God  deceitfully,  and  wilfully  changed  the  truth 
into  a  lie,  he  has  translated  a  plural  noun,  which  signi- 
jfies  three,  by  a  singular  one,  -■'■  hich  only  signifies  one. 

In  addition  to  the  above  evidence  I  would  observe, 
that  in  the  septuagent  the  Hebrew  Aleim  is  generally 
translated  by  the  singular  noun  Theos  ;  and  is  never,  as 
I  know  of  in  that  version,  translated  by  any  word  that 
implies  a  plurality  of  persons.  This  proves  beyond  all 
reasonable  contradiction,  that  the  Jews  did  not  think 
that  Aleim  represented  a  plurahiy  of  persons  in  God. — 
If  the  seventy  Jewish  interpreters.  Saint  Paul,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  his  biographer,  Saint  3Iark,  all  render  the 
word  Aleim  in  the  singular,  what  authority  have  we  to 
say,  that  it  signifies  a  plurality  of  persons  in  God  ? 

Because  the  plural  [)ronoun  tis  is  three  or  four  times 
applied  to  G  jd  in  the  old  Testament,  some  people  have 
concluded  that  there  must  be  three  coequal,  coessen- 


6i  TRINITY, 

tial,  coGternal  persons,  in  the  Godhead  :  but  I  thiiik  ik> 
such  conclusion  can  be  fairly  drawn  from  the  fact,  be- 
cause  he  might  say  us  with  regard  to  himself,  his  son^ 
and  the  rest  of  his  spiritual  family,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  they  are  every  one  dependant  on  him. 

If  a  father,  who  has  the  whole  control  of  his  family  and 
estate,  speaking  in  allusion  to  his  household,  should 
say,  *'  We  will  pitch  our  crop,"  or  "  We  will  sell  our 
produce,"  it  would  by  no  means  prove  that  he  thinks 
any  members  of  his  family  are  as  great  as  himself.  It 
a  head  workman  says  to  his  hands,  let  us  do  this,  or 
that  work,  he  does  not  mean  by  such  language,  that 
each  of  the  hands  is  equal  in  authority  to  himself. — 
Christ  called  h:mself  and  his  Father  us  and  ive.  Pray- 
ing to  his  Father  for  his  disciples,  he  says,  *'  That 
they  may  be  one  in  us."  And  that  "  They  may  be 
one  as  we  are  one."  If  Christ  uses  plural  pronouns  with 
regard  to  the  Father,  why  may  not  the  Father  use  them 
■with  regard  to  the  Son,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  mean 
to  express  no  equality  by  the  phrase  ] 

When  he  said,  "  Let  US  make  man  ;'^  Gen.  i.  26. 
he  probably  spoke  to  his  Son,  because  the  scripture  in- 
form us,  that  God  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ. 
When  he  said,  "  Let  us  go  down  and  there  confound 
their  language  ;"  Gen.  xi.  7,  and  when  he  said,  "Whom 
shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us."  Isai.  vi.  8.  He 
probably  ;.lluded  to  his  Son  and  other  heavenly  messen- 
gers, whom  he  employs  to  execute  his  purposes  ;  for 
at  the  time  he  spoke  the  last  of  these  passages,  he  was 
surrounded  with  the  seraphims  of  glory.  And  after  all 
I  am  not  certain  but  that  Christ  himself  made  these  ex- 
pressions. 

From  the  evidence  I  have  brought,  it  is  clear  that 
the  application  of  plural  pronouns  to  God  was  never  de- 
signed to  teach  that  he  consists  of  three  persons. 

Here  it  sh(mld  be  observed,  that  although  there  is 
not  one  plural  pronoun  applied  to  God  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  perhaps  not  more  than  four  in  the  old  j 
yet  he  is  pointed  out  in  the  holy  Bible  by  more  than  ten 
thousand  singular  ones.  Therefore  if  the  proof  of  three 
persons  in  God  must  rest  on  the  numbers  of  the  pro- 
nouns that  are  applied  to  him  in  the  scripture,  the  eyi- 


TRINITY.  65 

uence  will  be  against  it  in  a  proportion  of  more  than  two 
thousand  to  one. 

If  the  trinity  doctrine  is  an  essential  article  of  the 
Jewish  religion,  why  is  it  not  mentioned  in  the  old  Tes- 
tament ?  And  why  has  it  happened  that  not  one  Jew- 
ish writer  of  any  age  can  be  produced,  that  has  advanced 
or  advocated  the  doctrine  ?  It  is  certain  that  manv 
Jewish  writings  of  great  antiquity  are  extant,  and  it  is 
equally  certain  that  ever  since  the  doctrine  of  the  trini- 
ty was  invented,  its  believers  have  had  access  to  thos^ 
writings  ;  and  yet,  notwhhstanding  all  this,  they,  as  far 
as  I  am  informed,  have  never  been  able  to  produce  one 
book  written  by  a  Jew  in  favor  of  the  trinity.  If  the 
Jews  had  believed  the  doctrine,  they  surely  would  have 
taught  it  in  their  writings.  Ever  since  the  trinity  doc- 
trine was  generally  received  among  Christians,  its  ad- 
vocates have  taught  it  more  or  less  in  nearly  all  their 
religious  books.  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
if  the  Jews  were  Trinitarians,  they  would  have  express- 
ed it  some  where  in  their  writings  1  The  supposition 
that  they  would  for  many  centuries  be  engaged  in  writ- 
ing books  on  religion,  and  uniformly  leave  out  of  all 
their  writings  an  important  doctrine,  the  belief  of  which 
they  thought  was  essential  to  salvation,  defies  cre- 
dulity. 

If  God  is  a  trinity  of  three  persons,  and  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  supreme  God,  he  of  course  must  be  three  persons. 
If  God  the  Father  exists  in  a  trinity  of  three  persons, 
and  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  both  God  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  Father  is,  then  each  of  them  must  also 
consist  of  three  persons,  and  if  so,  there  must  be  nine 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  because  three  times  three  are 
nine.  If  to  escape  the  absurdity  of  nine  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  it  be  argued  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are 
each  but  one  person  ;  I  will  then  ask  if  God,  our  heav- 
enly Father,  is  also  but  one  person  ?  If  you  answer 
yes,  I  shall  conclude  that  you  have  renounced  the  doc- 
trine of  three  persons  in  God  the  Father,  but  if  you  say 
the  Father  consists  of  three  persons,  but  that  the  Sou 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  each  but  one  person,  then  you 
jnust  believe  that  the  Father  is  three  times  as  great  as 
either  of  the  Other  two.  This  destroys  the  equaUty  of 
6* 


66  TRINITY. 

the  Father  and  Son,  and  runs  into  the  doctrine  of  five 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  because  three  in  the  Father,and 
one  in  the  Son,  and  one  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  make 
five.  If  it  be  argued  that  either  Father,  Son,  or 
Holy  Ghost,  taken  separately,  is  but  one  person,  and 
that  when  they  are  taken  collectively  they  are  three  per- 
sons, then  if  no  one  of  them  consists  of  three  persons, 
the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  neither  of  them  is 
identically  the  same  with  either  of  the  other  two,  but 
must  all  be  distinct  from  each  other.  If  the  supreme 
God  consists  of  three  persons,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  but 
one  person,  he  is  but  the  third  part  of  the  supreme  God. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  Father  and  Holy  Spirit  ; 
if  the  Almighty  God  is  three  persons,  and  each  of  them 
but  one  person,  then  each  of  them  is  two  thirds  less 
than  the  Almighty  God.  But  if  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  each  one  separately  considered  is  three  persons, 
then  there  must  be  nine  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Let 
Trinitarians  take  hold  of  which  horn  of  this  dilemma 
they  choose,  it  will  oblige  them  to  deny  that  God  is  ei- 
ther supreme  or  infinite,  because  no  being  can  be  su- 
preme who  has  two  equals,  nor  infinite  who  consist?  of 
either  three  or  nine  equal  part?, 


PART  IV. 

THE  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER  I. 


TO    PROVE    THAT    CHRIST    IS   A  DISTINCT    BEING    FROM    GOD,    ^t 
THAT  HIS  POWER  IS    DERIVED    FROM    THE    FATHER. 


The  blessed  Jesus  says,  ''  All  things  are  delivered 
unto  me  of  my  Father."  Mat.  xi.  27.  Luke  x.  22. 
If  he  was  the  supreme  Being,  and  the  original  owner  of 
all  things,  how  could  he  say  in  truth,  "  All  things  are 
delivered  to  me  of  my  father]"  He  did  not  say,  all 
things  are  delivered  to  me  of  myself,  nor  did  he  say  that 
one  of  his  natures  had  delivered  all  things  to  another  of 
his  natures:  but  he  spoke  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  if  it  is 
certain  that  the  Son  of  God  spoke  those  words,  it  i^ 
equally  certain  that  he  is  dependant  on  the  Father  fcQ" 
all  things. 

*'  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only  be- 
gotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hatli 
declared  him."  John  i.  18.  If  Christ  was  the  eter- 
nal Father  and  the  supreme  God,  then  every  one  had 
seen  the  eternal  Father  and  supreme  God,  that  had  seen 
Christ.  This  shows  that  they  are  two  distinct  beings, 
because  if  Father  and  Son  were  only  different  names 
for  the  same  being,  it  would  be  impossible  to  see  one 
^vithout  seeing  tlie  other.    If  your  name  i-s  John- Adams-i 


68  OF    CHRIST. 

I  cannot  see  John  without  seeing  Adams,  because  John 
is  Adams.  If  God's  name  is  both  Father  and  Son.  then 
I  cannot  see  the  Son  without  seeing  the  Father,  because 
the  So  1  is  the  Father. 

As  John  the  Baptist  was  sent  to  announce  the  coming 
of  Christ,  and  prepare  the  way  before  him,  it  would  be 
•well  for  us  to  attend  to  his  testimony  in  the  following 
verses  :  "  He  that  cometh  from  above,  is  above  all : 
he  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earthly,  and  speaketh  of  the 
earth:  he  that  cometh  trom  heaven  is  above  all."  John 
iii.  31.  I  think  John  here  clearly  shows  that  Christ  ex- 
isted in  heaven  before  he  came  into  this  world;  because, 
if  by  coming  from  above,  and  from  heaven  he  onl) 
meant,  that  the  Saviour  was  commissioned  and  sent  by 
God,  he  might  have  said  the  same  of  liimself,  for  he  was 
as  really  commissioned  and  sent  by  God,  as  Christ 
was.  But  contrastirio  himself  with  his  Lord,  he  said 
that  he  was  of  the  arth,  and  earthly,  but  that  Christ 
came  from  above,  from  heaven,  and  was  therefore  above 
all.  Verse  34.  "  For  he  whom  God  hath  sent  speak- 
eth the  words  of  God  ;  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  /?/m."  As  sure  as  this  text  is  true,  Christ 
is  not  the  supreme  God  :  because,  how  could  the  su- 
preme God  send  himself?  or  give  the  Spirit  to  himself  ? 
The  idea  of  giving  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the  supreme 
Being,  is  too  absurd  to  need  refutation. 

In  verse  35th  of  the  same  chapter,  John  says,  "  the 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into 
his  hand."  As  sure  as  John  has  told  the  truth,  ail  the 
power  the  Son  of  God  has,  was  given  to  him  of  liis 
Father.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  it  was  Christ's  human 
nature  to  whom  the  Spirit  was  given,  and  into  whose 
hand  all  things  were  given,  because  Jolin  says,  they 
were  given  to  that  Son  of  God,  who  came  from  above, 
from  heaven  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  Christ's  human 
body  did  not  conie  from  above  ;  that  is,  from  heaven, 
any  more  than  John  did.  In  these  verses  John  was 
teaching  his  disciples  what  they  should  beheve  respect- 
ing his  Master:  and  I  now  ask  the  reader,  whether  he 
thinks  that  John's  disciples  took  up  the  idea  from  this 
discourse  that  Christ  was  the  supreme  self-q^xist^nt- 
God? 


OF    CHRIST.  69 

When  Trinitarians  attempt  to  prove  what  they  call 
the  supreme  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  always  proceed 
on  the  assumption  that  he  is  both  the  supreme  God  and 
a  real  man ;  thus  instead  of  proving  they  assume  the 
main  point  in  dispute,  and  then  argue  trom  it  as  though 
it  were  an  admitted,  or  a  self-evident  fact.  When  they 
have  taken  this  position,  they  refer  all  the  passages 
which  represent  him  as  a  bemg  inferior  to,  or  distinct 
from  God,  to  his  human  nature,  and  still  persist  in  their 
unproved  opinion  that  he  is  the  supreme  Being.  A  little 
comparison  will  illustrate  the  course  they  take.  If  I 
should  assert  that  in  the  late  war.  General  Harrison  was 
both  commander  of  the  North-Western  Army,  and  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  you,  in  order  to  disprove 
this  assertion,  would  show  a  number  of  "fficial  docu- 
ments, written  both  by  the  President  and  the  General, 
which  not  only  represent  them  to  be  distmct  per- 
sons, but  also  affirm  that  the  General  was  in- 
ferior to  tho  President,  and  received  all  his  power 
from  him  ;  and  then  to  obviate  thi>  evidence,  I  should 
assert  that  as  General  Harrison  he  was  inferior  to  the 
President,  and  distinct  from  him,  but  as.  President  he 
was  m  all  re-pects  equal  t"  the  President,  I  would  argue 
exactly  as  the  Trinitarians  do  in  this  controversy.  I 
can  bring  from  the  history  of  the  war,  and  fr<jm  the  offi- 
cial documents  in  the  war  office,  just  as  g  >od  evidence 
to  prove  that  General  [iarri>on  wms  president  of  the 
United  States,  as  the  Trinitarians  can  bring  from  the 
Bible  to  prove   that  Jesus  Christ   is  the  supreme  God. 

To  prove  that  Christ  is  God.  they  quote  those  pas.* 
sages  of  scripture,  which  ascribe  the  same  offices,  at- 
tributes and  works  to  him  that  are  in  other  parts  of  the 
book  ascribed  to  God,  and  hence  conclude  that  he  must 
be  God.  And  to  prove  that  (leneral  Harrison  was 
President,  I  can  bring  forward  documents  that  ascribe 
the  same  office  attributes,  a  d  ^vorks  to  him,  which 
Other  parts  of  those  documents  ascribe  to  the  President, 
and  hence  conclude  that  he  was  undoubtedly  the  Pre- 
sident  of  the  United  States.  The  history  of  the  late 
war,  and  the  official  documents  in  the  war  office  show 
that  the  President  was  commander  in  chief  of  all  the 
armies  of  the  United  States,  and  those  documents  as-* 
cribe  to  him  the  attributes  of  wisdom  and  fortitnde,  ami 


70  OF    CHRIST* 

also  show  that  he  whipped  the  British  at  the  battle  of  the 
Thames  ;  but  as  the  same  writings  affirm  that  General 
Harrison  commanded  the  North  Western  army,  that  he 
possessed  the  attribute^  of  wisdom  and  tbrtitude,  and 
beat  the  iiritish  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames,  I  might 
therefore  contend  that  he  must  ha  e  been  tiie  President. 

And  if  any  one  should  oppose  to  this  argument  a  lettei 
written  i)y  Harrison,  in  which  iie  iickn(.wledged  that  he 
received  all  his  power  fro.i  the  President,  and  that  he 
was  inferior  to  him,  1  couhi  reply  that  he  spoke  this  in 
reference  to  his  interior  (office,  that  as  General  Harrison 
this  was  ti^e,  but  as  Ptesident  Hanison  it  was  not  true. 

Most  Tiinitarians  affirm  tiiat  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood neing  united  in  the  person  oi  Lhrist,  he  was,  there- 
fore, b  -ih  God  and  man  uj  thi^  highest  and  fullest  sense 
of  these  words.  The  Presbyteiian  Confession  of  iaith 
says,  thrtt  when  the  Godhead  and  manhood  were  united 
in  the  person  of  Christ  they  never  were  to  be  separated  ; 
but  it  apprars  to  me  that  when  he  died,  they  mu.-t  have 
been  separated,  or  else  the  diviniiy  must  have  died  as 
well  as  the  humanity. 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  then  that  very  individual  per- 
son, who  is  the  supreme  God,  is  in  reality  a  man.  If  I 
should  say  of  a  human  being  that  he  is  a  large  man  six 
feet  high,  and  sixty  years  old,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
but  a  little  infant  three  days  old.  it  would  not  be  si^  wide 
of  the  truth,  as  to  say  that  the  upreme  God  is  really  and 
properly  a  man  ;  because  there  is  a  greater  disparity 
between  God  and  a  man,  than  there  can  be  between  any 
two  finite  beings. 

G-od  is  a  being,  and  a  man  is  a  being,  and  if  Jesus 
Christ  is  very  G<jd,  and,  at  the  same  time,  very  man, 
then  he  must  be  two  distinct  beings,  one  of  whom,  is 
infinitely  superior  to  the  other.  To  say  of  an  animal 
that  it  is  really  and  properly  a  gnat,  and  at  the  same 
time  really  and  properly  an  elephant,  iu  the  fullest  and 
highest  sense  .f  these  words,  would  not  be  more  un- 
reasonable, nor  so  far  from  the  truth;  because  the  small- 
est insect  is  not  so  much  inferior  to  the  largest  animal, 
as  any  creature  is  to  the  infinite  God. 

This  doctrine  i^  <qually  opposed  to  reason  and  scrip- 
ture. The  scripture  says,  "  God  is  not  a  man  that  he 
nhoiikl  lie  ;  neither  tlie  sou  of  man  that  he  should  re- 


OF  CHRIST.  Tl 

pent."  Num.  xxiii.  19.  "  The  strength  of  Israel  will 
not  he,  nor  repent,  for  he  is  not  a  man."  1  Sam.  xv. 
29.  "  I  will  not  return  to  cie&troy  Ephraim,  for  1  am 
God,  and  not  man."  Hos.  xi.  9.  If  Christ  is  the  su- 
preme God,  and  is  as  reaii)  aiid  properly  a  man  as  he 
is  a  God,  then  it  is  just  as  untrue  to  .<ay  he  is  God  and 
not  man,  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  he  is  a  man  and  not 
God. 

If  it  be  argued  that  as  these  passages  were  vvrittcu 
before  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  they  were  then  true, 
but  that  he  has  become  a  man  since  they  were  written  ; 
then  it  will  follow  that  the  supreme  being  has  changed, 
and  since  the  days  of  Augustus  Caesar  assumed  a  na- 
ture, and  become  a  being  inliniteiy  inferior  to  what  he 
was  before.  Previous  to  that  tiiue  he  was  simply  and 
purely  God,  intinite  in  all  hi>  pertections ;  but  since  then, 
he  has  become  as  really  a  created  tiiiite  man,  as  he  is 
an  uncreated  infinite  God.  If  Je.-us  Christ  is  but  one 
being,  he  cannot  be  a  God  and  a  man  both,  because  they 
are  two  as  distinct  beings  as  ever  existed.  If  it  be  ar- 
gued that  he  is  not  really  both  Gud  and  a  man,  but  that 
he  only  has  the  nature  of  them  b'^th,  then  I  answer  that 
every  human  being,  who  has  receiv  ed  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  has  the  diviiie  lav  written  on  hi.-  heart,  has  the  na- 
ture of  both  God  and  man.  Peter  says,  "  Whereby  are 
given  unto  us  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises  ; 
that  by  those  ye  might  be  partakers  of  the  divine  na- 
ture." 2  Pet.  i.  4.  But  the  divine  and  human  nature 
both  being  united  in  the  Christian,  does  not  make  him 
both  God  and  a  man. 

If  Christ  is  really  and  properly  the  supreme  God,  and 
at  the  same  time,  really  and  properly  a  man,  and  yet  but 
one  individual  being,  then  he  must  be  both  a  created 
and  an  uncreated  being.  He  must  know  all  things  but 
not  know  all  things.  He  must  be  in  every  sense  of  the 
word  an  independent  being,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in 
every  sense  of  the  word,  a  dependant  one.  He  must, 
independently  of  all  other  beings  in  the  universe,  be  able 
to  do  every  thing  he  pleases,  and  at  the  same  time  not 
be  able  of  his  own  self  to  do  any  thing.  If  Christ  is  the 
supreme  God,  he  is  the  Creator  :  if  he  is  a  man,  he  is 
not  the  Creator.     If  he  is  a  man  he  is  a  finite  beins: ;  if 


T2  OF  CHRIST. 

he  is  the  supreme  God,  he  is  not  a  finite  being.  If  he 
is  both  God  and  man,  and  yet  but  one  person,  then  he 
is  what  he  is  not,  and  is  not  the  being  that  he  is. 

If  a  certain  person  is  a  man,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
Turk,  then  a  Turk  must  be  a  man  ;  so  if  Christ  is  God 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
a  real  man,  then  a  man  must  be  God. 

Christians  may,  without  examining  into  this  subject, 
admit  that  Christ  is  God  and  man,  both  in  one  person, 
but  as  soon  as  they  attentively  consider  the  subject,  they 
must  see  that  it  is  just  as  impossible  for  one  person  to  be 
God  and  a  man  both,  at  the  same  time,  as  it  is  for  an 
animal  to  be  an  ant  and  an  ox  both  at  once. 

It  is  impossible  to  believe  the  testimony  that  say3 
Christ  is  both  God  and  man  in  one  person,  because  it 
furnishes  as  much  evidence  to  prove  that  he  is  neither 
God  nor  man,  as  it  does  to  prove  that  he  is  both  :  be- 
cause when  I  say  that  a  person  is  a  man,  las  clearly 
affirm  that  he  is  not  God,  as  if  I  should  state  in  direct 
words  that  he  is  not  God  ;  and  when  I  say  of  the  Al- 
mighty that  he  is  the  supreme  God,  it  is  as  clear  a  de- 
nial that  he  is  a  man,  as  can  be  made  in  human  speech. 
Testimony,  which  flatly  contradicts  itself,  never  can 
be  relied  on  as  evidence  by  rational  beings. 

If  a  man  should  swear  that  although  he  was  not  born 
till  after  the  Revolutionary  war  was  over,  yet  he  had 
served  in  that  war  five  years,  as  a  soldier  under  Wash- 
ington, such  te:^timony  instead  of  proving  that  he  has 
a  right  to  a  pension  as  a  soldier  of  the  Revolution,  would 
only  prove  that  he  is  unwerthy  of  credit.  Just  so  the 
testimony,  which  affirms  that  the  individual  person  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  uncreated,  infinite,  independent 
God,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  created,  finite,  dependant 
man,  only  proves  itself  unworthy  of  belief. 

We  receive  the  Bible  as  God's  word,  because  it  con- 
tains the  evidences  of  truth,  and  we  reject  the  Alcoran, 
because  it  lacks  them  ;  but  if  all  the  contradictory  pro- 
positions involved  in  trinitarianism  were  literally  stated 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  would  be  almost  as  incredible 
as  the  Koran.  To  say  that  the  individual  person  of 
Christ  is  the  supreme  independent  God,  who  existed^ 
from  all  eternity,  and  at  the  same  time  a  real  man  that 


OF    CHRIST.  73 

«ievev  existed  till  the  reign  of  Augustus  C^sar,  is  as  palp- 
able a  contradiction  as  I  recollect  to  have  seen  in  the 
writings  of  Mahomet.     A  wise  and  just  God  never  can 
require  his  creatures  to  believe  both  sides  of  a  proposi- 
tion which  appears  to  them  to  contradict  itself;  because, 
if  he  does,  he  requires  them  to  believe  that  to  be  true, 
which  at  the  same  time  they  are  obliged  to  believe  is 
false.     If  God  should  require  me  to  believe  that  the  in- 
dividual person  of  Christ  is  an  uncreated,  self-existent, 
independent  being,  and  also  require  me  to  believe,  at 
the  same  time,  that  the  same  person  is  a  created  depezi- 
dant  behig,  he  might  as  well  require  me  to  be  in  New 
Vork  and  in  London  at  the  same  time.     It  would  be 
requiring  me  to  believe  and  disbelieve  the  same  propo- 
sition at  the  same  instant.     Such  a  requisition  would 
lay  me  under  as  much  obligation  to  believe  that  Christ 
is  neither  God  nor  man,  as  to  believe  the  one  or  the 
other,  because  if  he  should  bid  mc  to  believe  that  Christ 
is  a  created  dependant  person,  it  vrould  be  most  posi- 
tively forbidding  me  to  believe  that  he  is  an  uncreated 
independentperson.  To  tell  me  Imust  believe  that  Christ 
is  a  self-existent  uncreated  God,  is  clearly  telling  me 
that  I  must  not  believe  that  he  is  a  created  dependant 
man.     To  order  me  to  believe  any  thing,  is  the  same 
as  to  order  me   not  to  believe  the  reverse  of  it.      If 
God  should  order  me  to  travel  clue  Xorth  and  due  South, 
at  the  same  instant  of  time,  and  then  send  me  to  hell 
because  I  did  not  continue  to  travel  both  these  courses 
every  moment  of  my  life,  it  would  just  about  be  as  rea- 
sonable, as  to  send  me  to  hell  for  not  behoving,  at  the 
same  instant  of  time,  that  Christ  is  an  uncreated,  self- 
existent  person,  and  a  created  dependant  person.     But 
as  I  have  already  observed,  these  contradictions  are 
corruptions  of  Christianity,  and  cannot  be  found  in  the 
Bible. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  tv/o  most  incredible  things 
recorded  in  the  Nev/  Testament  are  the  miraculous 
conception  of  Christ,  when  considered  with  a  view  to 
his  pre-existence,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  human 
body  :  but  it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  nothing  more 
unreasonable,  contradictory,  or  incredible  in  either  of 
them,  than  th^re  is  in  any  other  miracle.  It  is  just  as 
"  7 


74  OF    CHRIST. 

easy  for  God  to  make  a  woman  conceive  a  child  witli- 
out  a  natural  father  as  with  one.  And  it  was  quite  as 
easy  for  God  to  prepare  a  body  for  the  pre-existent 
Christ,  and  clothe  him  with  it,  as  it  would  have  been  for 
him  to  invest  the  human  body  of  Christ,  with  a  spirit 
that  got  its  existence  at  the  same  time  the  body  did. 
And  it  is  altogether  as  reasonable  that  God  should  raise 
our  bodies  from  the  grave,  as  that  he  could  make 
Adam's  body  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  or  Eve's  out 
of  Adam's  rib. 

Here  I  think  it  proper  to  state,  that  although  I  firmly 
believe  in  the  miraculous  conception,  and  the  pre-ex- 
istence  of  Christ,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  human 
body,  still  I  do  not  think  that  a  belief  of  either  or  all  of 
them  is  essential  to  salvation.  Although  I  regard  them 
as  important  truths,  I  think  a  man  might  be  so  far  mis- 
taken as  to  reject  them  all,  and  still  be  a  christian.  The 
essentials  of  Christianity  are  comprised  in  a  small  com- 
pass. I  think  we  should  extend  our  christian  fellowship 
to  every  one  that  takes  Christ  for  a  Saviour,  and  is 
moral  and  harmless  in  his  behavior,  and  kind  to  his 
fellow  creatures.  And  the  people  who  do  so  should  be 
treated  as  Christians  without  regard  to  how  they  may 
explain  any  text  of  scripture,  or  to  what  convictions  or 
comforts  they  may  have  felt  in  their  own  minds  :  because 
no  matter  how  great  an  experience  a  person  may  have, 
it  will  not  do  to  depend  on  it  for  salvation. 

As  faith  and  obedience  are  the  conditions  of  salvation, 
the  man  who  professes  faith  and  obeys  the  gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  should  always  be 
treated  as  a  Christian. 

I  know  some  Christians  think  that  this  would  be 
opening  the  door  of  the  church  too  wide,  but  I  think  it 
would  be  making  it  narrower  than  many  professors 
make  it  in  our  days,  because  if  none  but  harmless, 
moral,  benevolent  people  were  admitted  to  church  mem- 
bership, a  great  many  that  are  now  in  churches  would 
have  to  be  excluded. 


or  cHRiSTv  75 


CHAPTER  II. 


[The  same  subject  continued.) 

As  Christ  is  the  "  faithful  and  true  ivitness,''  his  own 
testimony  must  be  the  surest  guide  to  a  correct  know- 
ledge of  his  person  and  dignity.    " 

According  to  the  eighteenth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter 
of  John's  testimony,  it  appears  that  the  Jews  were  so 
full  of  prejudice  and  hatred  against  Christ,  that  they  ac- 
cused him  with  making  himself  equal  with  God,  and 
wanted  to  kill  him,  merely  because  he  said  he  was  the 
Son  of  God.  But  in  the  next  two  verses  he  positively 
denies  the  charge  in  the  following  words,  "  Then  an- 
swered Jesus,  and  said  unto  them,  verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what 
he  seeth  the  Father  do  :  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth, 
these  also  doeth  the  Son  likev/ise.  For  the  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all  things,  that  himself  doeth  : 
and  he  will  show  him  greater  works  than  these,  that  ye 
inay  marvel." 

If  Christ  had  been  equal  with  God  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  word,  he  would  not  have  denied  it,  because  it  is 
not  likely  that  the  supreme  Being  would  deny  his  own 
power  and  dignity,  for  fear  the  Jews  would  throw  stones 
at  him.  It  is  probable  that  the  Saviour  had  two  motives 
in  correcting  their  mistake  ;  one  was  to  keep  them  from 
thinking  that  he  claimed  equality  with  God,  and  the 
other  was  to  escape  out  of  their  hands  ;  because  the 
proper  time  for  him  to  lay  down  his  life  had  not  then 
come.  If  the  Son  could  do  every  thing  of  liimself,  he 
would  not  have  said  that  he  coidd  do  nothing  of  himself . 
If  he  was  infinite  in  wisdom,  he  would  have  had  too 
much  regard  for  the  truth,  to  have  said  that  his  Father 
wonld  show  him  greater  things  than  he  then  kriew.  In 
the  22d  and  23d  verses  of  the  same  chapteF'Ke  says, 
''  For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed 
all  judgement  unto  the  Son  ;  that  all  men  should  honor 
the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father,  he  that  honor- 


76  OF    CHRIST. 

eth  not  the  Son,  honorelh  not  the  Father,  which  hatlJ 
sent  him."  If  I  should  say  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  judgeth  no  man  in  Michigan  'territory, 
but  that  he  has  committed  all  judgement,  in  that  coun- 
try to  a  supreme  Judge,  and  ordered  that  all  the  people  in 
that  jurisdiction  should  honor  the  Judge  while  he  is  act- 
ing in  his  official  capacity,  even  as  they  honor  the  Pre- 
sident, and  also  assert  that  such  as  refuse  to  honor  him, 
refuse  to  honor  the  President  who  appointed  hmj,  it  i? 
not  probable  that  any  rational  man  would  take  up  the 
idea  from  such  a  statement,  that  the  Judge  was  either 
the  President,  or  a  person  in  all  respects  equal  to  him. 
As  sure  as  the  Son  of  God  has  power  to  judge  the  world, 
he  received  it  from  his  Father,  because  he  says  so,  and 
he  would  not  tell  a  falsehood. 

In  verses  26  and  27,  he  says,  "  For  as  the  Father 
hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  himself;  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute 
judgement  also,  because  he  is  the  son  of  man."  Here 
the  blessed  Saviour  does  not  draw  a  distinction  between 
a  divine  and  a  human  nature  in  himself,  and  say  as  my 
divine  nature  has  life  in  itself,  so  it  has  given  to  my  hu- 
man nature  to  have  life  in  itself,  but  he  draws  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  Son  and  the  Father  ;  and  as  sure  as 
he  told  the  truth,  both  the  life  and  the  authority  of  the 
Son  of  God  were  given  to  him  by  his  Father.  Besides, 
that  being  to  whom  all  judgement  was  committed,  who 
is  able  to  quicken  whom  he  will,  and  has  authority  tc» 
judge  the  world,  cannot  be  nothing  but  Christ's  human 
body,  but  must  be  the  Son  of  God  in  his  most  dignified 
character,  yet  in  that  very  character  he  received  his  life, 
and  his  authority  to  execute  judgement,  from  his  Father. 
If  those  passages  do  not  prove  that  he  derived  his  ex- 
istence and  authority  from  God,  they  do  not  prove  that 
he  is  a  person  of  dignity,  or  that  he  has  any  existence 
at  all. 

In  the  30lh  verse  he  says,  ''  I  can  of  mine  own  self 
do  nothing  :  as  I  hear,  I  judge  :  and  my  judgement  is 
just ;  because,  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me."  Trinitarians  may 
call  me  an  infidel  for  saying  Christ  is  a  dependant  be- 
ing, but  I  have  a  better  opinion  of  my  blessed  Lord. 


OF  CHRIST.  77 

than  to  think  he  would  say,  "  /  of  mine  oiun  self  can  do 
nothingj'^  if  he  knew  at  the  same  time  tliat  he  could,  of 
his  own  self  do  every  thing  he  pleased.  It  will  not  do 
to  say  that  in  this  text  he  only  spoke  of  his  human  body, 
because  he  was  speaking  of  himself  in  his  most  dignified 
character  as  judge  of  the  world  ;  hence  he  says  in  the 
same  verse,  "  As  I  hear,  I  judge,  and  my  judgement  is 
just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of 
the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me."  From  this  passage 
we  learn  the  following  things  :  1.  That  Jesus  Christ  as 
judge  of  the  world,  can  of  his  own  self  do  nothing.  2. 
That  he  was  sent  by  God  the  Father.  3.  That  he  has 
a  will  distinct  from  the  Father's.  The  supreme  God 
could  not  send  himself,  nor  could  he  have  a  will  distinct 
from  his  own  will. 

Peter  says,  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  power  ;  who  went  about  doing 
good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil : 
for  God  was  with  him."  Acts  x.  38.  This  text  shows 
that  he  is  a  distinct  being  from  God  the  Father,  because 
it  says,  ''  God  ivas  witliJiim.-^  If  any  person  should  as- 
sert that  Moses  uas  the  Angel  of  the  covenant,  I  would 
bring  a  text  that  says,  he  uas  with  the  Angel  in  the 
mount,  at  the  time  he  received  the  covenant,  and  that 
would  prove  that  he  and  the  Angel  were  two  distinet 
beings  :  so  when  Peter  says  that  God  was  v/ith  Christ, 
it  proves  that  they  are  two  distinct  beings. 

In  this  text  Peter  does  not  scruple  to  say,  that  God 
anointed  the  Saviour  Vvith  that  holy  spirit  and  power  by 
which  he  wrought  his  miracles.  If  a  preacher  in  a  Tri- 
nitarian church  in  the  present  day,  should  state  in  as 
plain  terms  as  Peter  has  done,  that  Christ  derived  all  his 
power  to  work  miracles  from  God,  he  would,  no  doubt, 
he  charged  with  heresy. 

7* 


ANCIENT  OPINIONS  OF  CHRIST. 


CHAPTER  III. 


ANCIENT    OPINIONS    OF    CHRIST. 


The  people,  who  Uved  contemporary  with  Christ- 
heard  his  discourses,  saw  his  miracles,  and  conversed 
with  him,  had  the  best  opportunity  to  form  correct  ideas 
of  his  person  and  dignity  :  therefore  it  will  be  well  for 
us  to  attend  to  their  testimony  on  the  subject.     Nico- 
demus  said  unto  him,  "  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a 
teacher  come  from  God  ;  for  no  man  can  do  these  mi- 
racles that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him."  John 
iii.  2.     No  doubt,  Nicodemus  felt  disposed  to  ascribe 
to  his  Master  all  the  honor  he  thought  was  due  to  him  : 
yet  he  only  called  him  a  man,  and  a  teacher  sent  from 
God  ;  and  plainly  shows  that  in  his  opinion  Christ's 
power  to  work  miracles  was  derived  from  God  ;  hence 
he  says,  "  For  no  man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou 
doest,  except  God  be  with  him."     "When  the  Jews  ac- 
cused him  of  making  himself  equal  with  God,  he  flatly 
denied  it,  and  said  that  the  Son  could  do  nothing  of  him- 
self, but  when  Nicodemus  said  he  was  a  man,  and  a 
teacher  come  from  God,  he  just  let  it  go  so.     By  say- 
ing that  God  was  with  him,  and  that  he  came  from  God, 
it  is  evident  that  the  Ruler  thought  he  was  a  distinct  per- 
son from  God.     If  the  Saviour  knew  that  to  believe  in 
a  trinity,  and  that  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  were  es- 
sential to  salvation,  he,  no  doubt,  would  have  told  Ni- 
codemus so  ;  but  he  did  not  say  to  him,  verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  believe  in  a  trinity  of  three 
coequal  persons  in  the  Godhead,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God.      But  he   promptly  told  him  that, 
*'  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom of  God."     If  a  person  like  Nicodemus,  under  deep 
concern  about  his  salvation,  should  enquire  of  an  honest 
hearted  Trinitarian  preacher  what  he  should  do  to  be 
saved,  and  like  Nicodemus  say  he  believed  that  Christ 
was  a  man  who  derived  all  his  power  from  God,  would 
not  the  preacher  feel  conscience  bound  to  correct  the 


ANCIENT  OPINIONS  OF  CHRIST.  79 

supposed  error?  especially  if  he  knew  he  could  doit 
with  a  word  ?  Christ  was  not  regardless  of  what  Nico- 
demus  should  believe  concerning  him,  because  in  the 
saine  conversation  he  informed  him  that  he  (the  Son  of 
man)  came  down  from  heaven.' 

The  man  whose  eyes  Christ  had  opened  gave  it  as 
his  opinion,  that  he  was  a  prophet  ;  and  after  the  Jews 
cast  him  out  of  the  synagogue  for  that  beUef,  Christ  in- 
formed him  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  See  Joh.  ix. 
17,  35,  36,37.  Now,  if  the  Saviour  knew  that  it  was  es- 
,-ential  to  that  poor  man's  salvation  to  believe  that  he 
was  the  supreme  God,  why  did  he  not  tell  him  so  ?  He 
well  knew,  that  the  man  did  not  beheve  that  he  was 
the  supreme  God,  because  he  had  just  before  told  the 
Jews  that  he  believed  the  man  who  opened  his  eyes 
was  a  good  man  and  a  prophet.  I  suppose  if  almost 
any  Trinitarian  preacher  would  undertake  to  instruct  a 
new  convert  in  what  he  should  believe  concerning 
Christ,  he  would  tell  him  that  he  must  believe  some- 
thing about  him  more  than  that  he  is  just  simply  the  Son 
of  God. 

"VMien  Jesus  fell  in  with  the  two  disciples  on  their 
way  to  Emmaus,  and  asked  them  what  manner  of  com- 
n:iunication  they  had  as  they  walked,  and  were  sad  ;  they 
frankly  told  him  their  opinion  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  viz. 
that  he  luas  a  prophet  mighty  in  deed,  and  ivord,  before 
God  and  all  the  people.  When  Trinitarians  undertake 
to  tell  an  inquiring  stranger,  who  Christ  is,  their  con- 
sciences oblige  them  to  say  that  he  is  the  supreme  God. 
but  the  doctrine  that  the  Jews  murdered  the  supreme 
God  was  not  at  that  time  believed  among  the  disciples 
of  Jesus. 

If  those  disciples  knew  that  Christ  was  the  supreme 
God,  they  must  have  misrepresented  him  wilfully,  be- 
cause when  they  told  the  supposed  stranger  that  he  was 
a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  in  word,  they  knew  that 
it  would  convey  the  idea  that  he  was  a  man  and  not 
God. 

"  When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of  Cesarea 
Philippi,  he  asked  his  disciples,  saying,  whom  do  men 
say  that  I,  the  son  of  man,  am?  And  they  said,  some 
say  that  thou  art  John  the  Baptist :  some,  Elias ;  and 


so  ANCIENT  OPINIONS  OF  CHRIST. 

Others,  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  He  saitii. 
unto  them,  but  who  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  And  Simon 
Peter  answered  and  said,  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  hving  God.  And  Jesus  answered,  and  said  un- 
to him,  blessed  art  thoiT  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  Mat.  xvi.  13,  14,  15,  16,  17.— 
Here  the  Saviour  pronounces  Peter  blessed,  because 
he  believed  that  Jesus  was  the  Christy  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  I  now  ask  what  authority  have  Trinita- 
rians to  pronounce  us  unsound  in  the  faith  respecting 
Christ,  when  we  believe  of  him  exactly  as  Peter  did  1 — 
There  is  hardly  a  Trinitarian  Church  in  all  my  knowl- 
edge, but  would  turn  a  man  out  of  meeting  unless  he 
believed  something  more  respecting  Christ  than  Peter 
did.  In  the  above  passagf^,  Christ  w^as  settling  amon^- 
his  disciples  the  disputed  question  about  ^cho  he  was, 
and  if  it  had  been  proper  for  them  to  believe  in  a  trinity, 
or  to  believe  that  he  was  coeternal  with  his  Father,  or 
that  he  was  the  supreme  God,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have 
told  them  so.  While  we  have  that  faith,  for  which  Je- 
sus blessed  Peter,  let  men  condemn  us  for  not  believ- 
ing more,  but  our  business  is  to  pray  for  them,  and  go 
on  our  way  rejoicing. 

That  Peter  was  sound  in  the  faith  respecting  the  Sa- 
viour, appears  fruii  the  following  testimony  of  John: 
And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence 
of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  ;  but 
these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believing  ye 
might  have  life  through  his  name."  John.  xx.  30,  31. 
John  does  not  say,  "  These  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead."  Nor 
does  he  say,  "  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe 
that  Jesus  is  the  supreme  God."  But  he  says,  "These 
are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  :"  therefore  all  who  beheve 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  are  sound  in 
the  faith  respecting  Christ  ;  they  believe  of  him  the 
very  things  that  John's  testimony  was  ^mtten  to  make 
them  believe. 


81 

'  This  text  proves  that  faith  is  the  act  of  the  creature, 
and  that  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  every  one  who 
hears  the  gospel,  to  so  believe  in  the  Saviour  as  thereby 
to  have  life  through  his  name.  But  if  it  is  impossible  for 
men  to  believe  till  after  God  quickens  them,  imparts  to 
them  this  eternal  life,  and  gives  them  faith  directly  from 
heaven,  then  God  has  missed  his  aim.  He  inspired 
J  ohn  to  write  this  book  that  men  might  believe,  but  if 
it  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  believe,  it  does  not 
answer  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  written. 

Christ  says,  "  I  proceeded  forth,  and  came  from  God: 
neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me."  John  viii. 
42.  If  Jesus  Christ  was  the  supreme  God  this  text 
would  be  the  same  as  to  say,  "  I  proceeded  forth,  and 
came  from  myself;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  I  sent 
myself." 

"  Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things 
into  his  hands,  and  that  he  was  come  from  God,  and 
went  to  God."  This  text  shows  that  he  and  God  are 
two  distinct  beings,  because  no  being  can  come  from 
himself,  nor  go  to  himself.  It  also  proves  that  he  is 
dependant  on  God  for  all  his  riches  and  glory,  because 
if  he  had  been  the  supreme  God,  nothing  could  have 
been  given  to  him  but  what  was  already  his  own.  It 
will  not  do  to  say,  that  he  spoke  all  this  in  allusion  to 
his  human  nature,  because  it  was  the  very  person  that 
proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God,  into  whose  hands 
the  Father  had  given  all  things.  His  humanity  was 
made  of  a  womeui,  and  did  not  proceed  forth  from 
God. 

Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  "  I  came  out  from  God. 
I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the 
world  :  again  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  unto  the  Fa- 
ther." This  text  proves  at  once  Christ's  pre-existence 
with  God,  and  his  distinct  existence  from  him.  It 
proves  his  pre-existence,  because  it  shows  that  he  came 
into  the  world  when  he  came  from  God,  in  the  same 
sense  that  he  went  out  of  the  world  when  he  went  to 
God  :  and  if  it  will  not  prove  that  he  existed  personall) 
with  God  before  he  came  into  the  world,  it  will  not 
prove  that  he  has  a  real  existence  with  him  now,  since 
lie  has  left  the  world.     It  proves  his  distinct  existence 


S2  ANCIENT  OPINIONS  OF  CHRIST. 

from  God,  because,  if  he  was  that  very  God,  he  could 
neither  come  out  from  him,  nor  go  back  to  him.  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  this  distinct  being  was  his  humanity, 
for  the  person  here  spoken  of,  was  with  God  before  he 
came  into  the  world,  and  consequently  before  the  hu- 
manity existed. 

In  a  solemn  prayer  to  his  Father,  Jesus  said,  "This 
is  hfe  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  John 
xvii.  .3.  Here  the  blessed  Jesus  has  asserted  that  his 
Father  is  the  only  true  God,  in  contradistinction  from 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  had  sent.  If  it  was  the  only 
true  God  that  was  praying  to  himself  in  this  text,  the 
sense  or  rather  the  nonsense  of  the  text  would  be  about 
this,  "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  my- 
self, the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  also 
myself,  and  likewise  the  only  true  God,  whom  myself 
hath  sent."  Were  I  to  say,  "  This  is  the  happiness  of 
the  British  subjects,  that  they  know,  and  obey  George 
the  fourth,  the  only  true  King  of  Great  Britain,  and  the 
Prime  Minister  whom  he  hath  appointed,"  I  would  not. 
by  such  form  of  speech,  more  clearly  deny  that  the 
Prime  Minister  is  the  only  true  King  of  Great  Britain, 
than  Christ  has  in  the  above  passage  denied  that  he  is 
the  only  true  God. 

In  the  fii\h  verse  of  this  chapter  he  says,  "  And  now, 
O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the 
glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the  world  was."  If 
the  Saviour  never  existed  till  he  vvas  born  of  the  Virgin, 
he  could  have  had  no  glory  with  his  Father  before  the 
world  was.  Some  people  say,  that  as  many  a  child 
had  an  estate  with  his  father,  that  is,  in  his  father's 
hands,  before  he  was  born,  so  all  that  Christ  meant  in 
this  prayer  was,  that  the  Father  should  give  him  that 
glory  which  was  laid  up  for  hi/rj  with  God,  before  he  or 
the  world  existed.  This  interpretation  seems  to  me  to 
be  forced  and  unnatural ;  because  when  he  says  to  the 
Father,  "  Glonfy  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,^'  he  cer- 
tainly expresses  a  wish  to  be  associated  with  God's  per- 
Bon  :  for  the  phrase,  thine  own  self,  must  mean  thy  per- 
son :  it  cannot  mean  thy  property,  thy  riches,  or  th> 
bles.'sings,     "When  this  prayer  was  answered,  he  way 


ANCIENT  OriNiONS  OF  CHRIST.  83 

seated  with  his  Father  in  his  throne,  he  was  taken  into 
personal  association  with  God  ;  therefore  he  must  have 
enjoyed  that  personal  glory  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was.  It  would  hardly  be  proper  for  a  child  to  ask 
tor  that  enjoyment  of  his  father's  company  which  he  had 
before  he  was  born. 

This  text  proves,  that  Christ  is  distinct  from,  and  de- 
pendant on  God  ;  because  if  he  was  not,  he  could  not 
pray  to  God,  nor  receive  any  glory  from  him.  It  will 
not  do  to  say,  that  it  was  the  human  nature  that  prayed 
10  the  divine  nature,  and  depended  on  it  for  glory,  be- 
cause it  was  that  Being  that  existed  with  God  before  the 
world  was,  that  prayed  to  God  as  a  dependant,  and  his 
human  body  did  not  exist  before  the  world  was. 

If  Christ  is  the  supreme  Being,  and  the  only  God  in 
the  universe,  the  sense,  or  rather  the  folly  of  the  above 
passage,  would  be  about  this,  "  O  myself,  glorify  thou 
me  with  mine  own  self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with 
myself  before  the  world  was."  In  the  eighth  verse  of 
this  chapter,  he  says  to  his  Father,  ''  I  came  out  from 
ihee  :"  and  in  the  thirteenth  verse  he  says,  "  And  now 
come  I  to  thee.^^ 

These  texts  shew  that  he  came  from  the  Father,  in 
the  same  sense  that  he  went  back  to  him.  If  he  had  no 
personal  existence  with  the  Father  before  he  came,  ho 
has  none  now,  since  he  went  back  to  him.  If  his  earn- 
ing out  from  the  Father  only  means  that  God  gave  him 
an  existence  and  commissioned  him,  then  his  going 
hack  to  the  Father  must  mean  that  God  has  taken  him 
out  of  commission  and  out  of  existence. 


S4  CHRIST    >'0T   SO    GREAT    AS    GOB, 


CHAPTER  IV, 


TASSiGES     OF     SCRIPTURE     THAT      PROVE      THE     SON    IS     KOT    60 
GREAT    AS    HIS    FATHER. 

''  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  Ephes.  i.  3.  We  all  think  it  would  be  im- 
proper to  say  the  supreme  Being  has  a  God  and  a  Fa- 
ther. "  That  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Father  of  glory  ;  Ephes.  i.  17.  If  Christ  is  the  su- 
preme Being,  he  can  have  no  God,  but  must,  himself, 
be  the  Father  of  all  glory  ,*  In  this  text  his  God  is,  in 
contradistinction  from  him,  mentioned  as  the  Father  of 
all  glory,  therefore  he  cannot  be  the  supreme  Being. — 
''  I  ascend  unto  my  Father,  and  your  Father,  and  to  my 
God,  and  your  God."  Joh.  xx.  17.  Every  person  is 
inferior  to,  and  dependant  on  his  God  ;  and  so  was  he 
who  had  just  conquered  death,  and  was  then  about  to 
ascend  in  triumph  to  his  God. 

*'  Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  the  Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all 
comforts-"  2  Cor.  i.  3.  Here  the  Father  is  men- 
tioned as  the  origmal  source  of  all  mercies  and  comfort, 
and  that  too  in  contradistinction  from  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  But  if  Christ  is  the  supreme  God  he  must  be 
the  original  source  of  all  mercies  and  comfort.  "  The 
God,  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is 
blessed  forever  more."  2  Cor.  xi.  31.  Blessed  be 
the  God,  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  1 
Pet.  i.  3. 

The  following  passages  show  that  Christ's  authority 
is  derived  from  his  Father.  *'  According  to  the  work- 
ing of  his  mighty  power,  which  he  wrought  in  Christ 
when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  set  him  at  his 
own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all 
principality,  and  power,  and  might,  and  dominion,  and 
every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but 
also  in  that  which  is  to  come  ;  and  hath  put  all  things 


CHRIST   NOT   SO   GREAT   AS   GOD.  85 

under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things 
to  the  church."  Eph.  i.  19,  20,  21,  22.  Here  Christ 
is  described  in  his  most  dignified  state  ;  yet  Paul  af- 
firms that  all  this  dignity  was  conferred  on  him  by  his 
God,  whom  he  mentions  in  the  seventeenth  verse  of 
the  same  chapter.  It  would  be  very  improper  to  say 
God  raised  the  supreme  Being  from  the  dead,  gave  him 
might,  dominion,  &c.  &c.  If  this  text  does  not  prove 
that  Christ's  greatest  power  lind  dignity  were  given  to 
him,  it  will  not  prove  that  he  has  any  power  or  dig- 
nity. 

That  Christ  is  a  dependant  Being,  is  as  clearly  prov- 
«5d  from  scripture,  as  that  he  is  a  person  of  great  powei 
and  dignity  :  the  two  doctrines  must  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether, the  same  scriptures  support  both. 

*'  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath 
appointed  unto  me."  Luk.  xx.  29.  Here  he  shows, 
that  he  was  as  much  dependant  on  God  for  his  king- 
dom, as  his  disciples  were  on  him  for  their  kingdom. — - 
Christ  says,  "  And  he  that  overcometh,  and  keepeth  my 
works  unto  the  end,  to  him  will  I  give  power  over  the 
nations:  (And  he  shall  rule  them  with  a  rod  of  iron  ; 
as  the  vessels  of  a  potter  shall  they  be  broken  to  shiv- 
ers :)  even  as  I  received  of  my  Father."  Rev.  ii.  26, 
27.  This  text  shows  that  his  disciples  will  receive 
from  him  power  over  the  nations,  even  as  he  received 
it  of  his  Father.  The  same  language  is  used  to  show 
his  dependance  on  the  Father,  that  is  used  to  show  the 
dependance  of  his  disciples  on  him.  Peter  says,  "  He 
[Christ]  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  people,  and 
to  testify  that  it  is  he  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be 
the  judge  of  quick  and  dead."  Act.  x.  42.  If  this 
text  does  not  prove  that  he  derived  his  authority  to 
judge  the  quick  and  dead  from  God,  it  does  not  prove 
that  he  has  any  such  authority. 

"  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  which  he  will 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by^hat  man  whom  he 
hath  ordained  ;  w;/iereo/'he  hath  given  assurance  unto 
all  men  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." — 
Act.  xvii.  31.  "  In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the 
.secrets  of  men,  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  my  Gos- 
pel.'' Rona.  ii.  16.  "He  which  raised  up  the  Lord 
8 


$6  CHEIST  NOT   SO    GREAI^  AS   G0I7. 

Jesus,  shall  raise  us  up  also  by  Jesus."  2  Cor.  iv. 
14.  In  all  these  passages  the  Saviour  is  mentioned  as 
an  instrument  through,  or  by  whom  God  will  raise  the 
dead  and  judge  the  world. 

Christ  says,  ''  I  lay  down  my  life  that  I  might  take 
it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down 
of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  have  I 
received  of  my  Father."  Joh.  x.  17,  18.  The  person 
who  spoke  this  could  not  be  the  supreme  God,  because 
the  idea  of  the  supreme  God  having  a  Father,  being 
commanded,  and  laying  down  his  life,  is  too  absurd  to 
need  refutation.  In  the  last  mentioned  text,  Chris* 
frankly  acknowledges  that  his  authority  or  power  to  lay 
down  his  life  and  take  it  again,  was  received  from  his 
Father. 

Christ  speaking  of  his  sheep  says,  "  My  Father, 
which  gave  them  me  is  greater  than  all."  John  x. 
29.  If  the  Saviour  had  been  in  all  respects  as  great  as 
his  Father,  he  could  not  have  spoken  these  words  in 
truth. 

"  Then  said  Martha  unto  Jesus,  Lord,  i{  thou  hadst 
been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.  But  I  know  that 
even  now,  whatsoever  thou  wilt  ask  of  God,  God  will 
give  it  thee."    John  xi.  21,  22. 

If  Martha  had  thought  her  Lord  had  unlimited  power 
of  himself,  she  would  not  have  requested  him  to  ask 
God  to  raise  Lazarus.  In  the  27th  verse  of  this  chap- 
ter, she  said  unto  him,  "  Yea,  Lord,  I  believe  that  thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  which  should  come  into 
the  world."  Here  Martha  undertook  to  tell  what  she 
believed  about  Christ,  and  it  is  exactly  what  I  believe. 
She  did  not  say  he  was  the  supreme  God,  but  still  she 
was  sound  in  the  faith.  When  the  blessed  Jesus  came 
to  the  grave  of  Lazarus,  he  addressed  his  Father  in  lan- 
guage well  calculated  to  make  the  spectators  believe 
Siat  he  was  sent  by  his  Father,and  dependant  on  him  for 
that  power  by  which  he  wrought  his  miracles.  "  Jesus 
lifted  up  his  eyes  and  said.  Father,  I  thank  thee  that 
thou  hast  heard  me.  And  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me 
always  :  but  because  of  the  people  'which  stand  by  I 


CHRIST   NOT   SO   GREAT   AS   GOD.  6< 

Sui(i  it,  that  they  may  beUeve  that  thou  hast  sent  me.'' 
Johnxi.  41,  42. 

When  he  fed  the  muUitude  with  loaves  and  fishes,  he 
showed  his  dependance  on  God  by  lookmg  up  to  heaven 
when  he  blessed,  and  brake  them."  Mat.  xiv.  19. 
Markvi.  41.     Luke  ix.  16. 

*' Christ  says,  the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but 
the  Father's  which  sent  me."  John  xiv.  24.  The  su- 
preme God  would  speak  his  own  word  ;  he  could  not 
be  sent  to  speak  the  words  of  his  Father,  because  he 
has  no  Father,  nor  is  it  possible  for  him  to  be  sent. — 
'^'  And  as  the  Father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I 
do."  John  xiv.  31.  Now  I  ask,  how  could  the  infi- 
nite God  obey  commandments  ?  "  If  ye  loved  me,  ye 
would  rejoice,  because  I  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father  ; 
for  my  Father  is  greater  than  I."  John  xiv.  28.  Here 
he  does  not  distinguish  between  two  natures  in  himself, 
and  say  one  of  them  is  greater  than  the  other,  but  he- 
draws  a  distinction  between  himself  and  his  Father,  and 
says,  '*  My  Father  is  greater  than  /."  If  the  blessed 
Jesus  had  known  that  he  was  coeternal,  coequal, 
and  coessential  w-ith  his  Father,  he  would  have  had 
more  regard  for  truth  than  to  have  said  his  Father  was 
greater  than  he. 

Some  good  people  think  they  honor  the  blessed  Jesus 
by  saymg  that  he  is  as  great  as  his  Father,  but  I  think 
it  would  be  more  honor  to  him,  and  ourselves  too,  to  be- 
lieve and  obey  him,  than  to  contradict  him. 

When  God  delivered  the  law  on  Mount  Sinai,  the 
Jews  were  afraid  and  said  to  Moses,  "Speak  thou  with 
us,  and  we  will  hear  :  but  let  not  God  speak  with  us* 
lest  we  die."  Exod.  xx.  19.  When  Moses  prophe- 
cied  of  Christ,  he  reminded  the  Jews  of  their  desire  not 
to  hear  God  speak.  He  said  "  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee 
of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  rne  ;  unto  hirn  ye  shall  heark- 
en ;  according  to  all  that  thou  desirest  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  Horeb,  in  the  day  of  the  assembly,  saying,  let 
me  not  hear  again  the  voice  of  the  Lord  my  God,  nei- 
ther let  me  see  this  great  fire  any  more,  that  I  die  not 
And  the  Lord  said  unto  me,  they  have  well  spoken.  I 
^'ill  raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their  brethreik 


88  CHRIST   NOT    SO    GREAT   AS    GOB, 

like  unto  thee,  and  will  put  my  words  in  his  month  - 
and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  shall  command 
him.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever  wiD 
not  hearken  unto  my  words,  which  he  shall  speak  in  my 
name,  I  will  require  it  of  him."  Deut.  xviii.  15,  16,  17, 
18,  19.  Here  notice,  the  Jews  had  expressed  their  de- 
sire that  God  shoidd  not  speak  personally  to  them, 
and  their  lawgiver  in  the  above  text  told  them  that  God 
had  granted  that  desire,  and  would,  instead  of  speaking 
to  them  in  his  own  person,  raise  them  up  a  prophet  like 
Moses,  into  whose  mouth  he  would  put  his  words,  and 
whom  he  would  command  what  to  speak.  Saint  Ste- 
phen and  the  Apostle  Peter,  both  affirm  that  this  prophet 
is  Jesus  Christ.  Hence  the  conclusion  is  irresistible, 
that  Christ  is  not  the  supreme  Being,  but  a  prophet  like 
jMoses,  sent  to  speak  God's  word  to  mankind,  and  be 
a  Mediator  between  him  and  them,  as  Moses  was  be- 
tween him  and  the  Jews.  Although  this  scripture  af- 
firms, that  Christ  is  a  prophet  like  Moses,  it  by  no 
means  proves  that  he  is  no  greater  than  Moses.  An- 
other text  informs  us,  that  he  is  as  much  greater  than 
Moses  as  a  man  is  greater  than  a  house  which  he  has 
built. 

After  our  blessed  Lord  was  raised  from  the  dead,  he 
said  to  his  disciples,  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth."  Mat.  xxviii.  18.  If  this  text 
does  not  prove  that  all  his  power  is  derived,  it  does  not 
prove  that  he  has  all  power.  The  very  passages  that 
ascribe  to  him  the  greatest  power  and  dignity,  prove 
that  he  is  dependant  on  God  for  the  same. 

"  And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in 
favor  with  God  and  man."  Luke  ii.  52.  The  infinite 
God  cannot  increase  in  wisdom,  nor  in  the  favor  of  God: 
but  a  dependant  being  can  do  both. 

If  the  blessed  Saviour  had  known  as  much  as  his  Fa- 
ther, he  would  have  known  when  the  day  of  judgement 
is  to  be  ;  he  says,  "  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour 
knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my 
Father  only."  Mat.  xxiv.  36.  "  But  of  that  day,  and 
Ihctt  hour,  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  which 
are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  Mark 
xiii.  .33.     Some  commentators  affirm  that  this  passagi> 


CHRIST   NOT   SO    GREAT   AS    GOD.  89 

should  be  understood  thus  :  "  Of  that  day,  and  that 
hour,  no  man  maketh  you  to  know,  no,  not  the  angels 
which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.'* 
If  this  interpretation  be  correct,  then  the  Father  has 
made  us  to  know  when  the  day  of  judgement  will  be. — 
But  as  the  text  does  not  say  so,  and  as  the  Father  has  not 
made  us  to  know  when  that  day  will  be,  I  must  regard 
the  explanation  as  an  evasion  of  the  truth  :  and  it,  in 
my  opinion,  requires  a  good  deal  of  charity  to  believe 
(hat  such  an  explanation  would  satisfy  a  well  informed 
christian. 

Some  people  say  he  spoke  this  in  allusion  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  if  the  Son  of  God 
has  a  finite  and  an  infinite  nature,  and  by  the  former 
cannot  discover  the  day  of  judgement,  but  in  virtue  ot 
the  latter  is  equal  in  knowledge  to  his  Father,  and 
knows  when  that  day  will  be  as  well  as  he  knows, 
he  has  been  guilty  of  a  shameful  prevarication,  be- 
cause he  has  asserted,  unequivocally,  that  he  does  not 
know  it.  If  one  of  my  eyes  was  too  weak  to  see  a  let* 
ter,  and  the  other  sufficiently  strong  to  read  the  small- 
est print,  and  I  should,  without  any  reserve,  assert  that 
I  cannot  see  to  read,  it  would  be  a  falsehood :  and  if 
I  should  say,  I  only  meant  that  I  could  not  see  to  read 
with  my  weak  eye,  it  would  still  be  a  prevarication,  be- 
cause if  I  can  read,  I  ought  not  to  deny  it.  If  the  Son 
of  God  knew  when  the  day  of  judgement  will  be, 
v.hether  he  obtained  that  knowledge  by  a  human  or  a  di- 
vine faculty,  he  could  not  tell  the  truth  when  he  said  he 
did  not  know  it. 

I  have  been  accused  of  holding  doctrines  dishonoring 
to  the  Son  of  God,  but  I  think  the  best  way  to  honor 
the  blessed  Saviour  is  to  believe  and  obey  him.  It  can 
be  no  honor  to  Christ  to  disbelieve  his  words,  and  re- 
present him  as  a  much  greater  and  older  person  than 
he  is. 

If  I  have  erred  in  saying  he  is  inferior  to,  and  do 
pendant  on  God,  that  his  wisdom  is  hmited,  and  his 
power  derived,  he  has  led  me  into  those  errors  ;  be- 
cause he  has  said,  "  /  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing.'''' 
*-*  My  Father  is  greater  than  I. ^^  He  has  denied  that 
he  kneAv  when  the  day  of  judgement  will  be,  and  as-- 
8* 


90  CHRIST   NOT   SO   GREAT    AS   GOD^ 

serted  that  all  poiver  in  heaven  and  earth  was  given  i'^ 
him. 

His  very  name  proves  that  he  is  a  subordinate  be- 
ing. He  is  called  the  Christ,  which  signifies  the  anoint- 
ed ;  and  certainly  it  would  be  very  improper  to  say  that 
the  supreme  God  was  anointed. 

*'  God,  who  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  Fathers  by  the  prophets, 
hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom 
he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he 
made  the  worlds,  who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory, 
and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  &c."  Heb.  i. 
1,  2,  3.  We  are  always  dependant  on  ancestors,  or 
benefactors,  for  what  we  possess  by  heirship.  If  Christ 
had  been  the  original  Creator  and  owner  of  all  things. 
he  could  not  have  been  appointed  heir  of  all  things  :  the 
infinite  God  cannot  be  an  heir,  nor  receive  appoint- 
ments. 

Every  one  knows  that  the  image  of  a  person  is  noi 
the  person's  self.  From  this  text,  it  is  as  clear  that  the 
person  of  Christ  is  not  the  person  of  God,  as  that  the 
image  or  statue  of  Washington  is  not  Washington. 

*'  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold  one  like  the 
Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came 
to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before 
ihim.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory, 
and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages 
should  serve  him  :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  do- 
minion, which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom 
that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed."  Dan.  vii.  13,  14. 
From  this  passage  it  appears  that  Christ  received  his 
kingdom  from  God  ;  and  the  following  text  proves  that 
he  will  give  it  back  to  him.  "  Then  cometh  the  end, 
when  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God, 
even  the  Father ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule, 
and  all  authority  and  power.  For  he  hath  put  all  things 
under  his  feet.  But  when  he  saith,  all  things  are  put 
under  him ;  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which 
did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when  all  things  shall 
be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself 
be  subject  unto  him,  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all."  1  Cor.  xv,  24,  27^  2^.     Thes.o 


CHRIST    NOT    SO    GREAT    AS    GOT),  91 

passages  show,  beyond  doubt,  that  Christ  is  dependant 
on  God,  and  distinct  from  him  ;  because  the  supreme, 
infinite  God,  could  not  receive  the  kingdom  from  God, 
nor  give  it  back  to  God,  nor  be  subject  to  God.  When 
it  is  said  of  Christ  that  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is 
manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him,  that  is,  the  Father  who  put  all  things  under 
Christ  is  not  also  under  him.  As  Pharaoh  set  Joseph 
over  all  Egypt,  but  not  over  himself,  but  told  him,  "  I 
only  in  the  throne  will  be  greater  than  thou,"  so  the 
Father  has  put  all  things  under  Christ,  while  he  himself 
is  over  him. 

"And  now,  saith  the  Lord  that  formed  me  from 
the  womb  to  be  his  servant,  to  bring  Jacob  again  to  him, 
though  Israel  be  not  gathered,  yet  shall  I  be  glorious  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  and  my  God  shall  be  my  strength. 
And  he  said  it  is  a  light  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  my 
servant,  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  restore 
the  preserved  of  Israel :  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto 
the  ends  of  the  earth."  Isa.  xlix.  5,6.  Here  observe, 
the  person  speaking  acknowledges  that  the  Lord  formed 
him  to  be  his  servant,  and  then  exclaims,  "  My  God 
shall  be  my  strength."  That  tliis  person  is  Jesus  Christ, 
appears  from  the  following  scripture  ;  "  For  so  hath  the 
Lord  commanded  us  saying,  I  have  set  thee  to  be  a 
light  of  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  shouldest  be  for  salva- 
tion unto  the  ends  of  the  earth."  Acts  xiii.  47.  I  now 
ask  if  it  is  any  how  probable  that  from  such  prophecies 
as  these,  relative  to  their  Messiah,  the  Jews  would  form 
the  idea  that  he  was  coequal,  coessential,  and  coeternal 
with  the  supreme  God  ? 

The  Holy  Scriptures  ascribe  to  the  Saviour,  humility, 
prayer,  tears,  fear,  obedience,  and  sufferings ;  no  one 
of  which  is  applicable  to  the  infinite,  self-existent  God, 
"  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when  he  had  offered  up 
prayers,  and  supplications,  with  strong  crying  and  tears, 
unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from  death,  and  was 
heard  in  that  he  feared  ;  though  he  were  a  Son,  yet 
learned  he  obedience  by  the  tilings  which  he  suffered  ; 
and  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eter- 
nal Salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him."  Heb.  v.  7, 
8,9.    It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  apostle  here  allud.es 


-92  CHRIST   NOT    SO   GREAT   AS   COD. 

to  nothing  but  his  human  flesh,  because  the  text  clearly 
shows  that  the  very  being,  who  prayed,  cried,  shed 
tears,  feared,  learned  obedience,  and  was  made  perfect, 
has  under  God,  become  the  author  of  eternal  Salvation 
to  all  them  that  obey  him.  How  could  the  infinite  God 
cry,  and  shed  tears,  or  to  whom  could  he  pray  and 
make  supplications  t  Whom  could  he  obey,  or  how  is  it 
possible  that  he  could  suffer  ?  yet  Christ,  in  his  most 
illustrious  character  as  the  author  of  eternal  salvation, 
has  done  all  these.  "  And  he  took  with  him  Peter,  and 
the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  began  to  be  sorrowful 
and  very  heavy.  Then  said  he  my  soul  is  exceeding 
sorrowful  even  unto  death."  Mat.  xxvi.  37,  38.  This 
text  shows  that  it  was  not  merely  his  human  flesh  that 
was  subject  to  sorrow  and  death,  because  he  says,  ''  JMij 
soul  is  exceeding  sorroxi'jul  even  itnto  death.^^  "  Learn 
of  me  :  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart."  Mat.  xi. 
29.  "  Now  I,  Paul,  myself  beseech  you  by  the  meek- 
ness and  gentleness  of  Christ."  2  Cor.  x.  1.  "  Be- 
hold thy  king  cometh  unto  thee  :  he  is  just  and  having 
salvation  lowly,  and  riding  upon  an  ass."  Zech.  ix.  9. 
**  Behold  thy  king  cometh  unto  thee  meek  and  sitting 
upon  an  ass."    Mat.  xxi.  5. 

Meekness,  and  lowliness  are  not  applicable  to  the 
supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe. 

When  the  prophets  foretold  of  Christ,  they  always 
mentioned  him  as  a  being  inferior  to,  and  dependant  on 
God.  "  And  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem 
of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out  of  his  roots  : 
and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him,  the  spirit 
of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and 
might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  ;  and  shall  make  him  of  quick  understanding  in 
the  fear  of  the  Lord."     Isa.  xi.  1,  2. 

These  words  are  inapplicable  to  the  infinite  God,  be- 
cause he  could  not  be  dependant  on  the  spirit  of  another 
being  to  make  him  of  quick  understanding,  nor  is  it  pos- 
sible that  he  should  have  the  fear  of  God  in  him. 

*'  Behold  my  servant  whom  I  uphold ;  mine  elect  in 
whom  my  soul  delighteth :  I  have  put  my  spirit  upon 
him  ;  he  shall  bring  forth  judgement  unto  the  Gentiles." 
Isa.  xlii.  1 — 3.  ''  A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break, 
and  the  smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench :  he  shall  bring 


CHRIST   NOT   SO    GREAT    AS    GOD.  93 

forth  judgement  to  truth."  Here  the  Saviour  is  repre- 
sented as  Gud's  servant,  upheld  by  him,  and  on  him  de- 
pendant for  his  holy  spirit.  Such  language  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  supreme  God;  he  needs  no  one  to  uphold 
him.  The  following  pas^agf  in  the  same  chapter  from 
the  fifth  to  the  eigth  verse  inclusive,  sets  the  subject  in 
a  clear  point  of  view.  "  Thus  saith  God  the  Lord,  he 
that  created  the  heavens,  and  stretched  them  out,  he 
that  spread  forth  the  earth,  and  that  which  cometh  out 
of  it :  he  that  giveth  breath  to  the  people  upon  it.  and 
spirit  to  them  that  walk  therein  ;  I  the  Lord  have  called 
thee  in  righteousness,  and  will  hold  thine  hand,  and  will 
keep  thee,  and  give  thee  for  a  covenant  of  the  people, 
for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles  :  to  open  the  blind  eyes, 
to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the  prison,  and  them 
that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison-house.  1  arw  the 
Lord  :  that  is  my  name  ;  and  my  glorv  will  I  not  give  to 
another,  neither  my  praise  to  graven  images  :"  That 
the  person  here  described  is  Jesus  Chri-t.  appears  from 
the  following  texts  where  the  same  >criptures  are  ap- 
plied to  him  in  the  New  Testament.  "  Behold  my 
servant  whom  I  have  chc^sen :  my  beloved ;  in  whom 
my  soul  is  well  pleased  ;  I  will  put  my  spirit  upon  him, 
and  he  shall  show  judgement  to  the  Gentiles.  A  bruis- 
ed reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  smoking  flax  shall  he 
not  quench."     Mat.  xii.  18—20.      Luke  ii.  32. 

Here  God  the  Lord,  tlip  Creator  of  the  universe,  is 
represented  as  calling,  upholding,  and  disposing  of 
Christ  as  his  own  servant,  to  make  him  answer  his  pur- 
pose as  an  instrument  to  enlighten  the  Gentiles  :  and 
then  adds,  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  i>  my  name,  and  my 
glory  will  I  not  give  to  an<jther."  Now,  if  I  should  as- 
cribe to  any  other  being,  Jesus  Christ  not  excepted,  the 
glory,  which  the  supreme  being  has  claiuied  to  himself. 
I  should  expect  by  so  doing  to  incur  his  severe  dis- 
pleasure. 

There  is  nothing  said  in  the  scriptures  of  his  relation 
to  the  Father  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  his  being  an 
heir,  an  agent,  and  an  inferior.  The  following  compa- 
rison will  elucidate  my  view  of  the  subject.  If  a  rich 
merchant  of  New  York  should  send  his  son  to  do  busi- 
ness for  him  as  his  agent,  with  people  in  London^  he 


94  CHRIST    NOT   SO    GREAT    AS    GOD. 

Plight  address  them  in  the  following  language,  "  Yoit 
need  not  fear  to  deal  with  me  :  for  whosoever  deals  with 
me,  deals  with  my  father ;  every  bond  I  give,  I  give  in 
his  name,  and  he  will  pay  it.  True  it  is,  that  none  of 
you  has  at  any  time  seen  my  father ;  but  I  am  come  to 
declare  him  to  you,  and  whosoever  believes  me,  believes 
my  father  who  sent  me  ;  for  1  just  speak  his  words  as  he 
directed  me.  I  and  my  father  are  one  in  our  views,  dis- 
position, and  business.  1  act  by  his  authority  :  he  has 
given  rae  power  over  his  whole  estate,  and  in  all  the 
transactions  of  his  businesf^  he  and  I  are  equal  :  I  con- 
tinually obey  him,  and  the  bargains  I  make,  and  the 
prices  I  offer,  I  neither  make  nor  offer  of  myself,  but  as 
my  father  commanded  me,  so  I  do,  and  so  I  speak  ; 
because  my  father  is  greater  than  I,  and  1  have  come  in 
his  name  to  do  his  busmess."  In  such  a  discourse  the 
son  would  claim  altogether  as  much  oneness  and  equa- 
lity with  his  earthly  lather,  as  Jesus  Christ  has  in  the 
gospel  claitued  with  his  heavenly  Father  :  yet  it  would 
be  very  improper  to  draw  the  conclusion,  from  such  a 
discourse  as  this,  that  he  is  either  as  old,  or  in  every 
respect  as  great  as  his  mther :  and  it  would  be  still  more 
absurd  to  conclude  that  he  and  his  father  are  the  very 
same  identical  being. 

^'  ^Vhen  they  were  come  from  Bethany,  he  was  hun- 
gry ;  and  seeing  a  tig-tree  afar  off,  having  leaves,  he 
came,  if  haply  he  might  tind  any  thing  thereon :  and 
when  he  came  to  it,  he  found  nothing  but  leaves  ;  foi" 
the  time  of  figs  was  not  yet."  Mark  xi.  12,  13.  If  he 
had  been  infinitely  wise,  he  could  not  have  made  such 
a  mistake  as  this.  Hf  went  to  the  fig-tree  for  two  rea- 
sons ;  first,  he  was  hungry,  and  secondly,  "  If  haply  he 
might  find  any  thing  thereon."  If  the  Lord  did  not 
make  a  mistake  in  this  case,  his  biographer  has  misre- 
presented it.  If  a  historian  should  state  such  a  circum- 
stance about  any  other  person  in  the  world,  every  reader 
would  regard  it  as  the  hi-^tory  of  a  mistake. 

The  angel  Gabriel  addressed  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the 
following  words,  "  Behold  thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy 
womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name 
Jesus.  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of 
the  Highest :  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  th^ 


Objections  answered,  59 

throne  of  his  father  David  :  and  he  shall  reign  over  the 
house  of  Jacob  forever ;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall 
be  no  end."  Luke  i.  31,  32,  33.  If  Gabriel  did  know 
that  Christ  was  the  self-existent,  independent  God,  he 
would  not  have  represented  him  as  a  person  dependant 
on  the  Lord  God  for  the  throne  of  David.  If  the  angel 
knew  that  he  was  the  supreme  God,  and  that  it  was  es- 
sential to  the  salvation  of  men  that  they  should  believe 
so,  he,  no  doubt,  would  have  told  it.  If  a  Trinitarian 
minister  would  undertake  to  tell  what  he  believes  of 
Christ's  greatness,  and  go  no  farther  than  Gabriel  did, 
he  would  be  suspected  of  heresy ;  because  if  he  would 
not  say  that  Christ  is  the  eternal  God,  or  the  eternal 
Son  of  God,  or  something  else,  that  no  apostle  nor  pro- 
phet ever  said,  they  would  pronounce  him  unsound  in 
the  faith. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ARGU.MET3    AGAINST    THE    ABOVE    DOCTRIXE    COKSIDEREP. 

Argument  1.  Christ  says,  "/  and  my  Father  are 
o»e."  John  x.  30.  Therefore  he  must  be  the  supreme 
God. 

Answer.  It  is  very  possible  for  two  or  more  persons 
to  be  one  in  spirit  and  disposition,  and  yet  distinct  be- 
ings widely  differing  from  each  other  in  age,  authority, 
and  mental  endowments. 

Paul  says,  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered."  1 
Cor.  iii.  6 — 8.  *'  Now  he  that  planteth,  and  he  that 
watereth  are  one."  Although  Paul  and  Apollos  were 
distinct  persons,  and  might  differ  widely  in  age  and 
gifts,  still  they  were  one  in  religion.  "  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither,  bond  nor  free,  there  is 
neither  male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus."  Gal.  iii.  28.  "  And  the  multitude  of  them 
that  believed  were  of  one  heart,  and  one  soul."     Acts 


96  OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

iv.  32.  This  multitude  were  not  one  being,  nor  had 
they  all  souls  of  equal  capacity.  The  man  and  his  wife 
are  said  to  be  one  flesh.  Gen.  ii.  24.  Mat.  xix.  5. 
Yet  they  are  two  distinct  persons,  the  one  inferior  to 
the  other.  "Both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  who 
are  sanctified  are  all  of  one."  Heb.  ii.  11.  Yet  chris- 
tians are  not  Christ  nor  equal  to  him.  "  But  I  would 
have  you  to  know  that  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ : 
and  the  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man ;  and  the  head  of 
Christ  is  God."  1  Cor.  xi.  3.  If  this  text  does  not 
prove  that  God  is  superior  to  Christ,  it  does  not  prove 
that  men  are  inferior  to  him,  or  superior  to  women  ;  be- 
cause all  three  of  these  propositions  are  expressed  in 
the  same  terms. 

In  the  following  passage  Jesus  has  explained  in  what 
sense  he  and  his  Father  are  one.  "  Neither  pray  I  for 
these  alone,  but  for  them,  also,  which  shall  believe  on 
me  through  their  word  ;  that  they  all  may  be  one  ;  as 
thou  Father  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee  ;  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us  :  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou 
hast  sent  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  hast  given 
me,  I  have  given  them ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as 
we  are  one  :  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may 
be  made  perfect  in  one."  John  xvii.  20,  21,  22,  23. 
If  we  can  find  out  in  what  sense  two  Christians  are  one, 
then  we  can  tell  in  what  sense  Christ  and  his  Father 
are  one.  This  is  explained  by  the  following  scriptures: 
**  He  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit."  1  Cor. 
vi.  17.     "  For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 

one  body and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one 

spirit."  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  If,  because  Christ  and  his 
Father  are  one,  they  are  therefore  equal  to  each  other, 
then  Christ  must  have  prayed  that  all  the  Christians 
might  be  equal  to  God,  because  he  prayed  that  they 
might  be  one  in  him,  and  in  his  Father. 

Two  Christians  are  not  one  being,  yet  they  are  one, 
even  as  Christ  and  his  Father  are  one. 

Argument  2.  Christ  is  called  God,  therefore  he  miisl 
be  the  supreme  Being. 

Jlns.  This  does  not  prove  him  to  be  the  supreme 
Being,  because  the  scriptures  give  this  name  to  angels. 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  9? 

lo  men,  to  dumb  idols,  and  to  the  Devil.  Satan  is  call- 
*3d  God,  "  The  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the 
minds  of  them  who  believe  not."  2  Cor.  iv.  4.  The 
man  of  sin  is  called  God.  *'So  that  he,  as  God,  sitteth 
^n  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God." 
2  Thes.  ii.  4. 

Moses  was  called  God.  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  see  I  have  made  thee  a  God  to  Pharoah." — 
Exod.  vii.  1.  "  Who  is  like  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  among 
the  Gods?"  Exod.  xv.  11.  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile 
the  Gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people."  Exod. 
xxii.  28.  "  For  the  Lord  your  God,  is  God  of  Gods." 
Deut.  X.  17.  "  Thou  hast  made  him  a  Httle  lovvcr  than 
the  angels."  [Hebrew,  than  the  Gods.]  Psal.  viii.  5. 
In  the  Hebrew  Bible  this  is  the  6th  verse.  "  God 
standethin  the  congregation  of  the  mighty  ;  he  judgeth 
among  the  Gods."  Psal.  Ixxxii.  1.  Verse  6,  "  I  have 
said  ye  are  Gods."  "  Among  the  Gods  there  is  none 
like  unto  thee,  O  Lord."  Psal.  Ixxxvi.  8.  "  Worship 
him  all  ye  Gods."  Psal.  xcvii.  7.  Verse  9,  "  For 
thou.  Lord,  art  high  above  all  the  earth ;  thou  art  ex- 
alted far  above  all  Gods." 

The  Jews  said  to  Christ,  for  a  good  work  we  stone 
thee  not,  but  for  blasphemy,  and  because  that  thou  be- 
ing a  man,  makest  thyself  God.  Jesus  answered  then* 
is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are  Gods  ?  If 
he  called  them  Gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came, 
and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken,  say  ye  of  him  whom 
the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  tliou 
blasphemest ;  because  I  said  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?" 
Job.  X.  33,  34,  35,  36.  Here  Christ  argues  that  it  is 
as  proper  to  call  him  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  was  to  call 
them  Gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God  came ;  but  in 
this  discourse  he  was  so  far  from  claiming  equal  digni- 
ty with  God,  that  he  acknowledges  his  dependance  on 
him  by  saying  that  his  Father  had  sanctified  him,  and 
sent  him  into  the  world.  I  now  ask  the  question,  who 
sanctified  the  infinite  God,  and  sent  him  into  the 
v/orld  ? 

This  text  furnishes  an  argument  in  favor  of  his  pre- 
existence,  because  it  holds  out  the  idea  that  he  was 
sanctified  before  he  was  sent  into  the  world. 
9 


9S  -OBJECTIONS   ANSVvEREF, 

It  is  not  certain  that  the  Jews  were  right  in  accui* 
ing  Christ  of  making  himself  God,  merely  because  he. 
said  he  was  God's  Son,  but  if  they  were,  he  must  have 
meant  that  he  was  God  in  a  subordinate  sense,  or  else 
he  would  not  have  referred  to  the  text  that  called  the 
children  of  Israel  Gods,  to  justify  himself  in  so  doing  : 
for  we  all  know  they  were  not  Gods  in  the  highest  sense. 
It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  supreme  Being  would 
make  such  an  apology  as  this  for  calling  himself  God. 
If  Jesus  Christ  had  a  right  to  be  called  God,  because 
he  was  the  supreme  Being,  he  could  have  told  the  Jews 
so,  as  easily  as  to  tell  them  what  he  did. 

If  he  is  the  infinite  God,  he  has  in  the  above  passage 
used  language  adapted  to  deceive  his  hearers,  because 
he  has  bottomed  his  right  to  the  title  of  God,  on  the 
fact  that  his  Father  had  sanctified  him,  and  sent  him 
into  the  world,  when,  at  the  same  time,  he  knew  that 
his  right  to  that  title  arose  from  his  being  the  supreme 
God,  and  independent  of  every  being  in  the  universe. 

Jlrgument  3.  *'  Aivake^  O  sicordf  against  my  Shep- 
herd, and  against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the 
Lord  of  Hosts.  Zech.  xiii.  7.  "  Here  Chi^ist  is  called 
the  Lord- s  fellow,  therejore  he  must  be  equal  with  the 
Lord  of  Hosts.'' 

Ans.  The  word  fellow  does  not  in  every  case  prove 
equality.  There  are  school  fellows,  work  fellows,  fel- 
low  heirs,  &c.^  that  are  inferior  and  superior  to  each 
other.  "  Hear  now,  0  Joshua,  the  high  priest,  thou 
and  thy  fellows,  that  sit  before  thee.  Zech.  iii.  8. — • 
If  Joshua  was  the  high  priest,  he  must  have  been  great- 
er than  his  fellow  priests.  Paul  calls  Andronicus  and 
Junia  his  fellow  prisoners.  Rom.  xvi.  7.  Yet  he  was 
no  doubt  superior  in  gifts  to  either  of  them.  "There  sa- 
lute thee,  Epaphras,  my  fellow-prisoner  in  Christ  Jesus; 
Marcus,  Aristarchus,  Demas,  Lucas,  my  fellow-labor- 
ers." Philem.  23,  24.  All  these  were  Paul's  fellows, 
yet  he  was  superior  to  any  of  them.  He  calls  Titus 
his  fellow-helper.  2  Cor.  viii.  23.  Philemon  a  fellow- 
laborer  ;  Apphia,  Archippus,  and  Epaphroditus,  fellow- 
soldiers.  Philem.  1.  2.  Phil.  ii.  25;  Others  of  his 
brethren  he  claims  as  yoke-fellows,  and  fellow-laborers; 
Phil:  iv.  3.     1  Thes.  iii,  2.     The  Gentiles  are  fellow- 


OSJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  ^$ 

'Citizens  with  the  saints  and  fellow-heirs  of  the  same 
body,  Ephes.  ii.  19.  Chap.  iii.  6.  Yet  among  all  these 
fellows,  Paul  informs  us  there  was  a  great  diversity  of 
gifts,  some  greater  and  some  smaller,  and  that  they 
will  differ  from  each  other,  as  one  star  differeth  from 
another  in  glory.  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah. 
were  Daniel's  fellows.  Dan.  ii.  13,  18.  But  in  the 
last  of  the  same  chapter  we  are  informed  that  Daniel 
was  greater  than  either  of  them.  The  word  fellow 
proves  no  kind  of  equality. 

The  following  passage  has  frequently  been  brought 
to  prove  that  Christ  is  the  supreme  God.  "But  unto 
the  Son  he  saith  thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and 
ever  :  a  sceptre  of  riahteousness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy 
kingdom  :  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated 
iniquity ;  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed 
thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows  :  And, 
thou  Lord  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  earth ;  and  the  heavens  are  the  works  of  thy 
hands."     Heb.  i.  8,  9,  10. 

God  is  the  highest  title  given  to  Christ  in  the  holy 
scriptures  ;  yet,  under  that  title,  he  is  said  to  have  a 
God  on  whom  he  is  dependant  foi  that  anointing,  which 
raises  him  above  his  fellows.  If  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  his  fellows,  here  alluded  to,  then  Christ 
must  be  greater  than  both  of  them,  because  the  text 
says,  that  he  is  anomted  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
his  fellows.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  it  was  nothing  but 
his  human  nature  that  was  anointed  above  his  fellowsj 
because  the  text  calls  the  person,  who  was  so  anointed, 
God,  and  says,  he  was  that  Lord  who  in  the  beginning 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  that  the  heavens 
were  the  work  of  his  hands  :  and  those  works  could 
not  in  truth  be  ascribed  to  that  human  nature  which  got 
its  existence  in  the  reign  of  Augustus  Caesar. 

This  passage  puts  the  question  relative  to  his  pre- 
existence  beyond  dispute,  because  if  he  never  existed 
till  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist,  he  could  not  have  been 
in  the  beginning  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  earth  and 
form  the  heavens. 

That  he  is  distinct  from,  and  dependant  on  God,  ap- 
pears from  this,  that  be  was  spoken  to  by  God,  and  by 


100  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED, 

him  anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows  ^ 
The  supreme  God  cannot  be  anointed,  nor  made  glady 
nor  promoted  above  his  fellows,  because  he  was  alwayi- 
infinitely  above  every  other  being  in  the  universe. 

His  fellovv's,  above  whom  he  is  said  to  be  anointed, 
are,  no  doubt,  the  angels,  or  heavenly  messengers,  with 
whom  he  is  contrasted  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
chapter. 

When  h^  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  he,  no 
doubt,  acted  as  God's  agent,  and  did  the  work  by  that 
power  which  God  gave  him.  In  the  second  verse  of 
this  chapter  he  is  mentioned  as  the  instrument  by 
(Greek,  clia,  through)  whom  God  made  the  worlds. 
When,  in  the  third  verse  of  this  chap^(r,  he  is  said  to 
uphold  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  it  is  evident 
that  he  exercises  a  power  derived  from  his  Father,  be- 
cause it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have  more  than  all 
the  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  and  that  much  his  Father 
had  given  him. 

In  the  next  verse  he  is  mentioned  in  the  passive 
voice  ;  "  Bein^  made  so  much  belter  than  the  angels, 
as  he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they."  This  language  is  not  app'^<"pb^e  to  the 
supreme  Being,  because  he  could  not  be  made  better. 
nor  could  he  be  made  at  all  in  any  sense  of  the  wordj 
nor  was  it  possible  for  him  to  obtain  by  inheritance  a 
name  ^rom  a  Father. 

But  this  language  is  very  applicable  to  Christ,  for  he 
was  capable  of  being  promoted  to  higher  dignity  by  his 
Father.  Hence  Peter  ^^ays,  "Therefore  let  all  the 
house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."     Acts  ii.  36. 

As  Nebuchadnezzar  made  Daniel  a  great  man,  by 
making  him  ruler  over  the  whole  province  of  Babylon, 
and  chief  of  the  governors  over  the  wise  men  of  Baby- 
lon :  Dan.  ii.  48,  so  God  has  made  Jesus  both  Lord 
and  Christ  by  giving  him  all  the  pov/er  in  heaven  and 
earth,  and  anointing  him  with  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  first  of  John  has  been  frequently  quoted  to  prove 
the  eternal  generation,  or  the  eternal  existence  of 
r-hrist.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word, 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  IQl 

was  with  God,  and  the  word  was  God.  The  same  wa? 
in  the  beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made  by 
him,  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
made."  Joh.  i.  1,  2,  3—10.  "The  world  was  made 
by  him."  From  this  passage  it  appears  that  in  the  be- 
ginning there  was  a  God  with  a  God  :  therefore  there 
must  have  been  two  beings  that  were  called  God,  but 
as  there  can  be  but  one  supreme  God,  Christ  must  have 
been  called  God  in  a  subordinate  sense  :  and  this  is 
very  possible,  because  Paul  says,  "  There  be  that  are 
called  Gods,  whether  in  heaven,  or  in  earlh,  (as  there 
be  Gods  many  and  Lords  many,")  1  Cor.  viii.  5.  From 
the  fourteenth  verse  it  appears  that  this  icord,  that  was 
called  God,  "  v/as  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us, 
(and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only-be- 
gotten of  the  Father,)  full  of  grace  and  truth."  This 
language  is  not  applicable  to  God  the  Father,  because 
he  could  not  be  passive  in  being  made  iiesh,  nor  is  it 
possible  for  him  to  be  passive  in  being  made  in  any 
sense  of  the  word  :  besides,  the  glory  of  the  only-begot- 
ten of  the  Father,  cannot  be  the  glory  of  a  self-existent 
infinite  God.  But  m  the  thirty-fourth  verse  of  this 
chapter,  John  decides  Vvho  this  person  is  ;  he  says,  "  I 
saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God." 
AYhen  it  is  said  that  all  things  were  made  by  him,  the 
meaning  is,  that  God  made  all  things  by  him  as  an  in- 
strument, because  the  Greek  word,  which  in  this  text  is 
rendered  by,  is  used  to  denote  an  instrument  in  the  fol- 
lowing places.  John  i.  7.  "  That  all  men  through 
him  might  believe."  Luke  i.  70.  "As  he  spake  by 
the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets."  Rom.  v.  H.  "We 
also  joy  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
we  have  now  received  the  atonement."  Rom.  iii.  24. 
"  Being  justified  freely  by  his  his  grace."  Acts  viii. 
18.  "  When  Simon  saw  that  through  laying  on  of  the 
apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given."  In  these 
passages  the  words  through  and  by,  are  the  same  Greek 
word  which  is  rendered  by  in  the  text  that  says,  "  dll 
things  were  made  by  him.^^ 

The  following  passage  proves  tliat  the  Father  is  the 
prime,  and  Christ  the  instrumental  cause  of  every  thing. 
''  To  us  there  is  but  one  God  the  Father,  of  whom  are 
9* 


102  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.' 

all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  ChHs^, 
by  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."  1  Cor.  viii. 
6.  "  And  to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellowship 
of  the  mystery,  v/hich  fi'om  the  beginning  of  the  world 
hath  been  hid  in  God,  who  created  all  things  by  Jesus 
Christ."  Ephes.iii.  9.  From  these  passages  it  is  evident 
that  God  created  all  things  by  Christ  as  an  instrument : 
and  the  following  text  shows  that  God  will  use  him  as  an 
instrument  in  judging  the  world.  "In  the  day  when 
God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  all  men,  by  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  my  gospel."     Rom.  ii.  16. 

Being  in  the  beginning,  is  no  proof  that  he  was  from 
all  eternity,  because  a  beginning  implies  a  time  ;  and  to 
prove  that  he  existed  at  some  particular  time,  no  matter 
how  long  ago  it  was,  is  no  proof  that  he  existed  from  all 
eternity. 

This  text  proves  the  pre-existen.ce  of  Christ,  because 
it  shows  that  he  was  with  God  under  the  character  of 
the  icord  before  he  v/as  made  flesh.  If  the  world  was 
made  by  him,  and  if  v/ithout  him  nothing  was  made,  that 
was  made,  he  must  have  existed  before  he  was  con- 
ceived by  the  Virgin  Mary.  It  cannot  be  the  beginning 
of  the  gospel  dispensation  that  is  alluded  to  in  this  text, 
because  if  ail  things  were  made  by  him,  he  must  have 
existed  before  that  time. 

Some  people  who  deny  the  pre-existence  of  Christ 
say  that  the  world  vrhich  was  made  by  him,  but  did  no? 
know  him,  was  the  gospel  church,  but  this  is  a  mistake, 
because  every  member  of  that  church  did  know  him. 
And  it  will  not  do  to  say  the  icorld  mentioned  in  this 
text  means  a  dispensation,  because  it  would  not  make 
good  sense  to  talk  about  a  dispensation  not  knowing  him. 
Besides,  I  recollect  of  no  place  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment where  the  word  kosmos,  which  is  here  translated 
2uorld,  is  used  to  denote  the  christian  church,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  it  generally  denotes  the  material  world,  or  its 
inhabitants,  as  in  Mat.  iv.  8,  where  Satan  showed  Christ 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  (gr.  kosmou)  Matt.  xiii. 
38.  "  The  tield  is  the  world."  (gr.  kosmos)  1  Cor.  vii. 
31.  "  They  that  use  this  world,  (gr.  kosmo)  as  not 
abusing  it."  In  the  following  passages  the  world  is 
mentioned,  as  being  in  opposition  to  Christ  and  his 


OEJECTiOXS    ANSWERED.  103 

people.  "The  world  cannot  hate  you,  but  me  it 
hateth."  Johnvii.  7.  "If  the  world  hate  you,  ye  know^ 
that  it  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.  If  ye  were  of  the 
world  the  world  would  love  his  own  :  but  because  ye 
are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the 
Avorld,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you."  Joh.  xv.  18, 
19.  In  every  place  where  the  word  world  occurs  in 
these  passages,  the  Greek  i^  kosmos,  viz.  the  world  that 
was  made  by  Jesus  Christ. 

The  second  verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Hebrews 
proves,  that  God  made  the  worlds  by  Christ  as  an  in- 
strument. "  By  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds."  1 
know  some  people  think  that  this  phrase  means,  that 
by  Chiiit,  God  appointed  the  dispensations;  but  I"think 
they  are  mistaken ;  for  although  the  word  aionas,  or 
aionioon,  which  in  this  text  is  rendered  worlds,'ma}- 
sometimes  mean  dispensations,  or  ages,  it  is  used  in 
the  following  passage  by  the  same  writer  to  denote  the 
material  words.  "  Through  faith  we  understand  that 
the  worlds  (Gr.  aionas)  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God, 
so  that  things  which  are  seen  were  not  made  of  things 
which  do  appear."  Heb.  xi.  3.  And  as  the  writer  in 
the  tenth  verse  of  this  chapter  refers  to  the  hundred, 
and  second  Psalm,  where  the  Lord  is  represented  as 
the  one  who  formed  the  natural  earth,  and  heavens,  and 
who  will  finally  fold  them  up,  and  change  them  as  a 
garment,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  true  meaning 
of  the  text  is.  that  God  made  the  natural  worlds  by  the 
instrumentality  of  his  Son.  And  I  am  the  more  con- 
firmed in  this  (^pinion  from  the  consideration  that  the 
Greek  word  epoiesen,  which,  in  the  above  text,  is  ren- 
<lered  made,  is  frequently  used  to  signify  create,  as  in 
the  following  passages  :  "  Lord,  thou  art  God,  which 
hast  made  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  that  in  them  is."  Act.  iv.  24.  "  God,  who  made 
heaven  and  earth,  and  spa."  Act.  xiv.  15.  "God, 
that  made  the  world,  and  all  things  therein."  Act.  xvii. 
24.  Where  the  word  made  occurs  in  each  of  these 
passages,  the  Greek  is  epoiesen.  But  if  the  phrase 
"  iiy  iL'lioiii  also  he  made  the  u-orlds,^^  means  that  by 
Christ,  God  appointed  or  regulated  the  different  ages  or 
dispensations,  it  does  act  effect  the  argument^  becaus/.^ 


104  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

whether  God  made  the  natural  worlds,  or  regulated  the 
difterent  dispensations  of  this  world  by  Christ,  he  must 
have  used  him  as  an  instrument,  and  of  course  Christ 
must  have  existed  before  he  came  in  the  flesh. 

If  God  has  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son,  has  appointed 
him  heir  of  all  things,  made  the  worlds  oy  him,  made 
him  better  than  the  angels,  given  him  by  inheritance  a 
more  excellent  name  than  they,  and  told  him  to  sit  on 
his  right  hand  till  he  would  make  his  enemies  his  foot 
.stool,  the  conclusion  is  irresitible  that  the  Son  is  a  be- 
ing distinct  from,  and  dependant  on  God  ;  because  the 
infinite  God  does  not  need,  nor  cannot  have  a  protec- 
tor to  say  to  him,  sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  foot-stool.  It  will  not  do  to  refer 
these  passages  to  two  different  natures  in  the  one  person 
of  Christ,  because  a  nature  is  not  a  person,  nor  a  ra- 
tional being,  and  it  would  not  accord  with  truth,  nor 
good  sense  to  represent  one  nature  as  saying  to  anoth- 
er, '^  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I  make  thine  enemies 
thij  foot-stool.''^ 

A  mere  nature  is  no  mere  capable  of  making,  or  un- 
derstanding a  speech  than  is  a  rock,  or  a  tree.  Hoa\ 
can  one  nature  anoint  another  nature  with  the  oil  of 
gladness  1  As  a  nature^  abstractedly  considered,  is  a 
mere  quality,  or  disposition,  it  v.ould  be  folly  to  ascribe 
to  it  actions,  or  gladness. 

If  one  of  Christ's  natures  anointed  another  above  it^ 
fellows,  then  he  must  have  at  least  three  natures,  be- 
cause the  anointing  and  anointed  natures  make  two, 
and  its  fellows,  above  which  it  was  anointed,  must  be  at 
least  two.  If  it  w^as  a  nature  that  was  anointed,  it  could 
not  have  been  anointed  above  its  fellow  persons,  be- 
cause a  nature  is  not  a  fellow  to  a  person.  If  Christ's 
human  was  anointed  above  his  divine  nature,  then  his 
humanity  must  be  greater  than  his  divinity. 

Argument  4.  The  same  attributes  are  in  scripture 
/jscribed  to  Christ  that  are  ascribed  to  the  Father,  there- 
fore he  must  be  the  supreme   God. 

Ans.  It  is  true  that  some  divine  qualities  are  attri- 
buted to  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  such  as  wis- 
fhm,  holiness,  (ruth,,  mcrcv.  &c.     But  it  is  also  friK. 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  105 

iiiat  these  qualities  are  by  the  scriptures  ascribed  to 
good  men,  yet  that  does  not  prove  every  good  man  is 
the  supreme  God.  Besides  I  have  ah-eady  proved  by 
the  scriptures  that  Christ's  hie.  his  wisdom,  and  all  he 
has,  were  given  to  him  by  his  Father. 

The  scriptures  say  several  things  of  the  Father  that 
they  do  not  say  of  the  Son.  They  say  that  he  gave  the 
Son  life,  that  he  gave  him  all  power  in  heaven  and 
earth,  committed  all  judgement  to  him,  that  he  is 
Christ's  Father,  is  greater  than  he.  and  sent  him  to  save 
sinners.  But  the  holy  scripture-  do  not  say  that  Christ 
is  God's  Father,  that  he  is  greater  than  the  Father,  and 
gave  him  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  nor  do  they 
say  that  the  Son  knows  some  particular  things  that  the 
Father  does  not  kn  'W. 

The  inspired  writins^s  ascribe  to  Christ  humility,  fear, 
obedience,  sorrow,  pain  and  death,  neither  of  which 
can,  in  truth,  be  attributed  to  the  supreme  Being. — 
Hence  if  we  judge  by  the  attributes  of  the  two  persons, 
they  cannot  be  the  same. 

Argument  5.  The  scriptures  ascribe  the  same  works 
to  Christ  that  they  do  to  the  Father,  therefore  ht 
must  be  the  supreme    God. 

Ans.  If  this  argument  be  eon-ect,  then  Moses  must 
be  the  supreme  God,  because  the  same  works  are  as- 
cribed to  him  that  are  ascribed  to  God.  Thus  we  read, 
^'I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage." — 
Exod.  XX.  2.  Deut.  v.  6.  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  go,  get  thee  down,  for  thy  people,  which  thou 
broughtest  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  have  corrupted 
themselves."  Exod.  xxxii.  7.  Chap,  xxxiii.  I. — 
Here  it  is  first  asserted  that  God  brought  them  out  of 
Egypt,  and  then  it  is  asserted  that  Moses  did  it. 

There  is  nothing  more  common  than  to  ascribe  the 
works  of  an  agent  to  both  him  and  his  employer.  If  a 
planter  should  say,  "  I  have  raised  a  hundred  acres  of 
cotton,"  and  then  in  the  same  conversation  tell  us  that 
his  overseer  did  it,  it  would  not  prove  that  he  and  his 
overseer  are  the  same  person.  If  a  merchant  should 
my  he  sold  a  large  quantity  of  goods  in  Ne^y-york  last 


i06  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

year,  and  then  inform  us  that  his  agent  sold  them,  it 
would  not  prove  that  he  and  his  agent  are  the  same 
man. 

The  scripture  says,  Moses  made  the  tabernacle,  3 
Chron.  xxi.  29.  Heb.  viii.  5.  Again  we  are  infbrnied 
that  Bezaleel,  Aholiab,  and  other  wise  men  made  it. 
Exod.  XXXI.  1 — 6.  But  that  will  not  prove  that  they 
and  Moses  were  the  same  being.  In  the  fourth  chapter 
of  second  Chronicles,  it  is  affirmed  that  king  Huram 
made  the  brazen  things  of  the  Pemple,  and  the  same 
chapter  informs  us  that  Solomon  made  those  things  :  but 
stiil  we  do  not  beUeve  that  these  two  kings  u  ere  the 
same  man,  because  we  read  that  the  one  employed  the 
other. 

If  because  the  same  works  are  ascribed  to  both  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  they  are  but  one  and  the  same  be- 
mg,  then  Satan  and  God  -ust  both  be  one  and  the 
same  being,  because  some  of  the  »ame  works  are  as- 
cribed to  both  of  them.  i  hus  we  read,  "  The  anger  of 
the  Lord  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  moved 
David  against  them  to  say,  go  number  Israel  and  Ju- 
dah."  2  Sam.  xxiv.  i.  "  And  Satan  stood  up  against 
Israel,  and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel."  1 
Chron.  xxi.  I.  From  the  first  chapter  of  Job,  it  ap- 
pears that  Satan  destroyed  all  his  property,  and  killed 
his  children  ;  but  in  the  same  chapter  Job  ascribes  it  all 
to  God.  In  the  second  chapter  of  that  book  we  are 
informed  that  Satan  smote  hnn  with  sore  boils  ;  and  in 
the  tenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  Job  ascribes  thai 
also  to  God.  If  we  regard  those  persons  as  God's 
agents  the  whole  difficulty  disappears.  There  is  as 
much  scripture  to  prove  that  Christ  is  God's  agent  and 
servant,  as  there  is  to  prove  that  Moses  was  :  and  there 
is  a  good  deal  more  scripture  to  prove  it.  than  there  is 
to  nrove  that  the  Devil  is  God's  agent. 


OEJECTIOXS   ANSWERfin.  107 


CHAPTER  V. 

,  The  same  subject  continued.) 

^IrgUiiient  6.  TJie  scriptures  say  that  Christ  is  equal 
icith  God,  therefore  he  must  be  the  infinite  God. 

Answer.  It  is  very  possible  for  him  to  be  equal  with 
God  in  some  things,  and  at  the  same  time  inferior  to 
him  in  some  other  things.  An  agent  is  equal  to  his  em- 
ployer in  transacting  the  business  that  belongsto his  agen- 
cy, while  at  the  same  time  he  is  dependant  on  his  em- 
ployer for  the  appointment,  and  accountable  to  him  for 
the  performance  of  his  duty.  That  Christ  received  his 
appointment  from  God,  appears  from  the  following  pas- 
sage. "  Consider  the  Apostle  and  high  priest  of  our 
profession,  Christ  Jesus  :  who  was  faithful  to  him  that 
appointed  him,  as  also  Moses  xvas  faithful  in  all  his 
house.  For  this  man  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory 
than  Moses,  in  as  much  as  he  who  builded  the  house 
hath  more  honor  than  the  house.  For  every  house  is 
builded  by  some  man ;  but  he  that  built  all  things  is 
God.  And  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all  his  house, 
as  a  servant. — But  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house, 
whose  house  are  we."     Heb.  iii.  1 — 6. 

This  passage  as  clearly  shows  that  Christ  received 
his  appointment  from  God,  and  was  accountable  to  him 
for  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty,  as  that  Moses 
was  appointed  by  God,  and  to  hi  u  accountable  for  the 
performance  of  his  duty.  Thn  difference  between 
Moses  and  Christ  is  this,  Moses  was  a  servant  placed 
over  the  Jewish  church,  or  house,  which  Christ  in  his 
pre-existent  state  had  built,  but  Christ  as  a  Son,  and 
heir  of  all  things,  was  faithful  to  God  in  his  own  house, 
that  is,  in  the  Christian  church,  which  he  has  himself, 
under  the  authority  of  his  Father,  built  up  in  the  world, 
and  over  which  his  Father  has  made  him  the  head. 

I  have  heard  some  argue  from  this  text,  that  if  Christ 
built  the  hous^e,  and  if  he  that  built  all  things  is  Godt 


801  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED, 

therefore  Christ  must  be  God.  If  this  argument  be 
correct,  then  every  man  that  ever  built  a  house  is  God; 
because  tlie  text  as  plainly  says,  that  every  house  is 
builded  by  some  man,  as  that  Christ  built  his  own  house. 
Thus  I  might  argue  ;  if  every  house  is  builded  by  some 
man,  and  if  he  that  built  all  things  is  God,  then  every 
some  man,  that  ever  built  a  house,  is  God.  The  obvious 
meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  Christ,  and  Moses,  and 
every  other  rational  being  are  by  God  appointed  to  their 
respective  duties,  and  whatever  they  may  be  enabled  to 
do,  or  to  build  up  in  obedience  to  God,  is  done,  or  built 
up  by  God  through  them  as  instruments. 

I  will  now  notice  the  two  passages  that  say  Chiist  is 
equal  to  God.  "  Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to 
kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  broken  the  Sabbath, 
but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  making  himself 
equal  with  God."  Joh.  v.  18.  Thus  the  ignorant, 
murderous  Jews  thought,  or  pretended  to  think,  that  by 
calling  God  his  Father,  he  had  made  himself  equal  to 
God ;  but  in  the  next  verse  he  positively  denies  the 
charge.  "  Then  answered  Jesus  and  said  unto  them, 
verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do,  for  what 
things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  hke- 
wise."  Here  instead  of  claiming  equality  with  God,  he 
expresses  himself  in  terms  as  humble  as  any  person 
can.  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do 
nothing  of  himself.^'  None  of  us  can  come  lower  than 
this.  I  have  often  thought  it  strange  that  although  this 
speech  of  the  Saviour  convinced  the  murderous  Jews 
that  he  had  not  claimed  equahty  with  God,  still  it  does 
not  convince  some  of  the  Trinitarians  of  the  present  day. 
I  now  ask  every  candid  reader,  whether  he  would  have 
drawn  the  same  inference  from  this  expression  that  the 
Jews  did  ?  Do  you  think  that  when  one  person  calls 
another  his  father,  he  thereby  makes  himself  equal  to 
him  ?  I  always  thought  that  to  call  a  man  father,  was  to 
acknowledge  him  as  a  superior.  If  the  Jews  were 
correct  in  saying  that  Christ  by  calling  God  his  Father 
made  himself  equal  with  God,  then  every  christian  in 
the  world  must  he  equal  with  God,  because  the  scrip- 
ture authorizes  them  all  to  call  God  their  Father.     I 


OKJ^ECTIONS    ANSWERED^  109 

Jiclieve  that  if  the  illnatured  Jews  had  not  drawn  this 
inference  from  the  Saviours  expression,  that  none  of 
the  good  natured  Trinitarian  doctors  of  the  present  day 
would  have  thought  of  it.  My  reason  for  so  thinking 
is,  that  out  of  the  numerous  texts  where  he  calls  God  his 
Father  this  is  the  only  one  from  which  they  have  tried 
'0  prove  that  he  is  equal  with  God. 

In  the  other  place  where  he  is  called  equal  with  God. 
the  translation  is  incorrect,  which  perhaps  will  appear 
from  attentively  reading  the  connexion.  "  Let  nothing- 
be  done  through  strife  or  vain^^glory  ;  but  in  lowliness 
of  mind  let  each  esteem  other  better  than  them- 
selves. Look  not  every  man  on  his  own  things,  but 
every  man  also  on  the  things  of  others.  Let  this  mind 
be  in  you  which  was  also  hi  Christ  Jesus  ;  who  being  in 
the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God ;  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  on 
him  the  form  of  a  servant."  Phil.  2,  3 — 7.  The  sense 
of  the  translation  amounts  to  this,  "  Now,  in  order  to 
be  humble,  you  must  have  the  same  mind,  which  was 
also  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  is,  because  you  are  created  in 
the  image  or  form  of  God,  you  must  think  it  no  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  him.  But  at  the  same  time  you  must 
make  yourselves  of  no  reputation,  and  put  on  the  garb 
of  a  servant ;  and  so  at  the  very  time  when  you  think  in 
your  heart  that  it  is  no  robbery  for  you  to  be  equal  with 
God  Almighty,  you  must  wear  the  external  appearance 
of  humility. 

Archbishop  Tillotson,  who  was  a  strong  Trinitarian 
has  translated  the  text  thus,  "  He  did  not  eagerly  covet  to 
be  (as  he  was  of  old)  equal,  in  all  his  appearances,  with 
the  Deity."  The  learned  Parkhurst  in  his  Greek  Lexi- 
con on  this  passage,  contends  for  the  present  transla- 
tion, but  at  the  same  time  acknowledges  that  many 
great  and  good  men,  as  well  as  others  inclined  to  de- 
grade the  Son  of  God,  have  rendered  the  Greek  words 
by,  *'  He  did  not  arrogate  to  himself  to  be  equal  with 
God,  i.  e.  he  made  no  ostentation  of  his  dignity."  But 
although  Parkhurst  when  explaining  the  Greek  word 
arpagrnon,  which  is  here  rendered  robbery,  contends 
that  it  is  translated  right,  yet  when  he  comes  to  explain 
rsa  theo,  which  king  James's  translators  have  rendered 
-     10 


110  OBJECTIONS    ANSWEREF. 

f.qual  with  God,  he  acknowledges  the  phrase  Is  fratis- 
lated  wrong,  and  says  it  should  be  rendered  as,  or  lilie 
God.  There  is  one  thing  certain,  and  that  is,  that  the 
phrase,  which  is  here  rendered  equal  with  God,  is  not 
the  same,  neither  in  the  Greek  nor  Latin  Testament  that 
is  so  rendered  in  John  v.  18.  If  we  admit  Parkhmst's 
definition  of  both  words,  the  literal  rendering  would  bo 
this,  "  who  being  in  the  form  of  God  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  as,  or  like  God."  Let  the  former  part  of  this 
passage  be  rendered  as  it  may,  I  can  see  nothing  to  jus- 
tify the  rendering  ofisa  by  the  word  equal.  The  literal 
meaning  oHsa,  is  as  or  like.  We  all  believe  that  Christ 
tB  as,  or  like  God. 

But  I  still  maintain  my  first  position,  that  if  he  is 
equal  to  God,  it  must  be  in  a  qualified  sense,  and  can^ 
not  prove  him  to  be  the  supreme  Being,  because,  as  I 
said  before,  it  is  very  possible  for  him  to  be  equal  with 
God  in  some  respects,  and  inferior  to  him  in  other  re- 
spects. Besides  no  one  being  can  be  equal  to  himself: 
therefore  if  Christ  is  in  all  respects  equal  to  his  father, 
then  they  must  be  two  distinct  self-existent  beings,  in- 
dependent of  each  other.  But  at  the  same  time,  neither 
of  them  can  be  supreme,  nor  infinite,  because  he  cannot 
be  supreme,  who  has  a  contemporary  as  great  as  him- 
self, nor  can  he  be  infinite,  who  has  been  equalled. 

Paul's  expressions  in  the  verses  immediately  after  the 
above  passage,  are  perhaps  sufficient  to  convince  any 
unprejudiced  mind  that  he  did  not  regard  Christ  as  a 
being  in  all  respects  equal  to  God.  "  And  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 
Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name  ;  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  hea- 
ven, and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth ; 
and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  Phil.  ii.  S, 
9,10,11. 

This  passage  does  not  only  prove  that  the  Saviour  is 
dependant  on  God  for  his  most  exalted  station  and  dig- 
nified name,  but  it  also  proves,  that  the  Father's  object 
in  exalting  him,  and  giving  him  this  great  name.  wa«  hi* 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWEREt).  Ill 

»5tt-ii  glory.  It  is  vain  for  Trinitarians  to  say  that  no- 
t-hing  but  his  humanity  is  dependant  on  God  for  exalta- 
tion and  a  name  ;  because  they  call  his  human  nature  « 
man,  and  that  is  not  a  name  above  every  name. 

It  is  plain  from  the  above  text,  that  Christ  under  his 
most  exalted  state,  is  dependant  on  God  for  his  exalta- 
tion, and  his  name.  He  cannot  have  a  name  higher 
than  the  name  which  is  above  every  name,  and  that  was 
given  to  him  by  his  Father  ;  if,  therefore,  he  is  depen- 
dant on  God  for  the  highest  character  he  sustains,  he 
must  be  dependant  on  him,  in  every  respect. 

Some  people  say  that  if  Christ  is  a  dependant  being, 
they  would  be  afraid  to  depend  on  him  for  salvation,  and 
pardon;  but  Peter  in  the  following  pas,«;age  shows  that 
the  very  person  who  is  our  Prince,  and  Saviour,  was  by 
God  exalted  to  those  high  offices  in  virtue  of  which,  he 
is  enabled  to  forgive  sins.  "  Him  hath  God  exalted 
with  his  right  hand,  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel,  aud  forgi\eness  of  sins.'" 
Acts  v.  31.  As  the  scriptures  plainly  say  that  God  has 
given  Christ  the  power  to  forgive  our  sins,  those  who 
refuse  to  trust  in  him,  because  his  power  is  delegated, 
refuse  to  have  their  sins  forgiven  in  that  way  which  God 
has  appointed. 

The  following  text  has  been  quoted  to  prove  that 
Christ  and  his  Father  are  the  same  being.  '•  Have  I 
been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not 
known  me,  Philip  1  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen 
the  Father  ;  and  how  sayest  thou  then,  show  us  the 
Father  ?  Joh.  xiv.  9.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but 
that  all  Christ  meant  in  this  passage  v.  as,  that  in,  and 
through  him  the  perfections  and  will  of  his  Father  were 
displayed,  and  seen :  b;*cause  all  that  Philip  could  see 
of  Christ  with  his  natural  eyes,  was  his  human  body, 
and  the  Trinitarians  them-elves  do  not  believe  that  it 
was  the  infinite  God.  And  all  that  Philip  could  see  in 
Christ  with  his  mental  eyes,  was  the  will  and  perfec- 
tions of  the  Father.  The  above  text  is,  I  think,  well 
explained  by  the  following  testimony  of  John:  "No 
man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only  begotten 
Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de- 
clared him."     Joh.  1.  IS.     John  meant  that  Christ  harj 


112  OBJECTIONS    ANSWEREFr 

declared  God  in  the  same  sense  that  Paul  in  the  follow- 
ing verse  declared  him  to  the  Athenians  :  *'  As  I  pass- 
ed by  and  beheld  your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with 
this  inscription  :  TO  THE  UNKOWN  GOD  ;  whom, 
therefore,  ignoranily  ye  worship,  him  declare  I  unto 
y«u."  Act.  xvii.  23.  In  this  same  conversation  with, 
Philip,  the  Saviour  sufficiently  explains  himself.  Thus 
he  says  in  the  next  verse,  "  Believest  thou  not,  that  J. 
am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  I  The  words 
that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself ;  but  the 
Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  If  it 
was  the  Father  himself,  that  was  talking  to  Philip  in  his 
own  person,  he  could  not  in  truth  have  said,  "  The 
words  that  I  speak,  I  speak  not  of  myself."  In  the 
twelfm  verse  of  thit^  chapter  he  says  :  "Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  he  that  beheveth  on  me,  the  works  that 
I  do,  shall  he  do  also  ;  and  greater  u'orks  than  these 
shall  he  do  ;  becaus;e  I  go  unto  the  Father.  If  that 
person  that  was  talking  to  Philip  and  the  other  disci- 
ples was  the  Father  in  his  own  person,  then  every  one 
that  believes  on  him  can  do  greater  works  than  the 
Father  can  do,  and  that  because  the  Father  has  gone 
to  the  Father.  If  that  person  who  was  talking  with 
Philip  had  been  the  Father,  he  would  not  have  said,  as 
he  does  in  the  16th  verse  :  "I  will  pray  the  Father,  and 
he  shall  give  you  another  comforter."  In  the  twenti- 
eth verse  of  this  chapter  he  says  :  "  At  that  day  ye  shall 
know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in 
you."  And  in  the  28th  verse  he  says,  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I." 

From  the  20th  verse  it  is  evident  that  the  Father 
dwells  in,  and  speaks  through  Christ  in  the  same  sense 
that  he  dwells  in  and  speaks  through  every  Christian  : 
with  this  difference,  that  as  Christ  is,  perhaps,  man) 
thousand  millions  of  times  more  capacious  than  the 
greatest  saint,  so  he  can  contain  that  much  more  of 
God  than  can  any  other  dependant  being. 

That  the  Father  does  speak  through  Christians,  ap- 
pears from  the  following  text :  "  For  it  is  not  ye  that 
speak,  but  the  spirit  of  vour  Father  which  speakethin 
vou."     Mat.  X.  20. 


OBJECT  IONS    ANSWERED.  113 

^lrgiimcnl7.  The  scriptures  say,  God  is  (he  Judge 
oftJu  world,  and  theij  also  say  that  Clirist  is  the  Judge 
of  the  world  ;   therefore  Christ  must  be  God. 

Alls.  We  will  now  see  what  Jesus  Christ  says  on 
this  subject.  "The  Father  judgeth  uo  man,  but  hath 
committed  all  judgement  unto  the  Son."  Again  he  says, 
*'  As  the  Father  hath  lile  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to 
the  Son  to  have  lite  in  himselt^;  and  hath  given  him  au- 
thority to  execute  judgement  also,  because  he  is  the  Son 
of  man."  Job.  v.  22,  26,  27.  Now  we  will  get  old 
brother  Paul  to  explain  it  to  us.  "  Li  the  day  when 
God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to  my  gospel.'-  Rom.  ii.  16.  Paul  taught 
this  same  doctrine  to  the  Athenians,  \  hen  he  preached 
in  Mars'  Hill.  He  said  to  them  :  "  The  times  of  this 
ignorance  God  winked  at,  but  now  comtnandeth  all 
men  every  where  to  repent :  because  he  hath  appointed 
a  day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness, 
by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised 
iiira  from  the  dead."  Act.  xvii.  30,  31.  That  Christ 
will  judge  the  world  as  an  agent  acting  under  the  au- 
thority given  to  him  by  his  Father,  is  taught  by  himself 
and  his  Apostles,  in  language  too  plain  to  be  misunder- 
stood. 

I  have  often  thought  strange  that  die  following  text 
should  be  pressed  into  the  Trinitarian  cause.  "  Of 
whom  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over 
all,  God  blessed  for  ever."  Rom.  ix.  5.  If  in  this 
text  the  word  God  was  placed  before  the  word  over, 
then  it  would  read  that  he  is  God  over  all ;  or  if  the 
comma  was  placed  after  the  word  God,  it  might  be  con- 
strued to  mean  the  same  thing  ;  but  as  it  now  stand? 
in  the  scripture,  it  does  not  say  that  he  is  God  over  all, 
nor  does  it  say  that  he  is  over  all  God,  but  it  says,  •' Ae 
is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  erer."  You  see  by  the 
punctuation  that  the  word  God  does  not  stand  with  that 
member  of  the  sentence  which  says,  he  is  over  all,  but 
with  that  member  which  says  he  is  blessed  forever.  I 
have  no  doubt  but  that  the  true  meaning  of  the  text  is. 
that  he  is  over  all,  blessed  of  God  for  ever.  But  let 
what  may  be  its  meaning,  it  certainly  does  not  say,  that 
10* 


114  OBJECTIONS    ANSWEEED. 

he  is  God  over  all.  If  the  text  did  say,  he  is  God  over 
all,  verbatim,  it  would  furnish  a  plausible  argument  in 
favor,  but  by  no  means  a  decisive  proof  of  his  supreme 
Deity,  because  the  word  all  is  frequently  used  in  scrip- 
ture in  a  restricted  sense,  and  as  the  title  God  is  given 
to  many  beings  in  a  subordinate  sense  ;  it  is  very  pos- 
sible for  Christ  to  be  God  over  all,  that  is  to  be  "  made 
head  over  all  things  to  the  CJmrch.^'  And  have  all  pow- 
er in  heaven,  and  in  earth  givoi  to  him ;  and  after  all 
tell  the  truth  when  he  says,  ^^  JMy  Father  is  greater 
than  /.■'  But  if  this  text  must  be  tortured  by  altering 
the  punctuation,  so  as  to  make  it  say,  he  is  God  over  all. 
and  if  the  word  all  means  every  being  in  the  universe, 
then  it  will  prove  too  much  tor  the  Trinitarian,  because 
it  will  prove  that  he  is  over  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  if  you  so  restrict  the  word  all  as  to  prevent 
it  from  making  him  higher  than  the  other  two  persons 
of  the  supposed  trinity,  that  very  restriction  will  be  ru- 
inous to  the  doctrine  of  his  supreme  Deity,  because  no 
one  can  be  a  supremo  God,  who  is  not  over  all,  but  has 
■wo  equals. 


CHAPTER  IV 


1  will  now  attend  to  a  few  more  passages  of  scripture 
that  have  been  brought  forward  to  prove  that  Christ  i* 
the  supreme  God. 

'•  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he 
laid  down  his  life  for  us.'-  1  Joh.  iii.  16.  This  text 
will  not  prove  that  the  supreme  God  died.  As  the  love 
of  God  is  displayed  to  us  in  the  death  of  his  Son,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  he  is  the  one  that  died  for  us. 
because  the  supreme  God  cannot  die. 

The  next  passage  I  shall  notice  is,  1  Joh.  v.  20 : 
''And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath 
^iven  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may  know  him  that 
is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true  ;  even  in  hi§  Son 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  115 

Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life.'' 
I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  pronoun  this  refers  to  him 
that  is  tnie,  because  he  is  the  person  chiefly  spoken  of 
in  the  sentence,  and  is  mentioned  in  contradistinction 
from  the  Son  of  God,  who  came  to  give  us  an  under- 
standing that  vve  may  know  him  that  is  true.  It  is  jusi 
as  grammatical  to  make  the  pronoun  agree  with  him  that 
is  true,  as  to  make  it  agree  with  Jesus  Christ.  Thf 
only  argument  that  can  be  brought  in  favor  of  the  latter 
construction,  is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  last  antecedent 
noun.  But  if  this  construction  be  adopted  to  prove 
Christ  is  the  true  God,  in  the  above  text,  then  it  will  in 
the  fo; lowing  text  prove  him  to  be  a  deceiver,  and  an 
antichn  n  .  "  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into 
the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist."  2 
Joh.  7.  >This  is  precisely  the  same  construction  as 
that  of  the  former  text :  and  Jesus  Clirisi  is  the  last  an- 
tecedent noun  before  the  pronoun  this.  And  it  just  a^ 
clearly  and  positively  proves,  that  he  is  a  deceiver,  and 
an  antichrist,  as  the  other  proves  that  he  is  the  true 
God.  ''  This  is  the  stone  which  was  set  at  nought  of 
you  builders,  which  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner." 
Act.  iv.  11.  If  in  this  sentence  the  pronoun  which  y^- 
must  agree  with  its  nighest  antecedent  noun  builders, 
then  the  persecuting  Pharisees,  and  priests,  who  mur- 
dered the  Lord,  must  be  the  head  of  the  corner  in  his 
spiritual  house  ;  and  this  text  proves  as  pointedly  that 
they  are,  as  that  one  in  John,  v.  20,  proves  that  Christ 
is  the  true  God. 

If  it  is  essential  to  the  salvation  of  men  to  behevo 
that  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  surely  the  proof  of  ii 
would  have  been  abundant  and  clear,  it  would  not  have 
been  left  to  depf^nd  on  the  agreement  of  a  pronoun 
with  its  antecedent,  which  is  at  best  equivocal,  and  capa- 
i)le  of  being  grammatically  parsed  two  or  three  differer- 
ent  ways.  Desperate  indeed  must  be  that  cause  hi 
support  of  which  a  majority  of  the  wisest  and  most 
learned  men  in  the  world  can  find  no  better  testimony. 

As  the  text  I  am  examining  seems  to  be  chiefly  re- 
lied on  by  the  Trinitarians,  to  prove  that  Christ  is  the 
true  Qod,  and  as  the  whole  force  of  the  evidence  de- 


116  OBJECTIONS    ANSV.ERED. 

pends  on  making  the  pronoun  agree  with  its  nighesf 
antecedent  noun,  I  will  bring  one  more  example  out  of 
the  many,  which  might  be  brought  to  prove  that  this 
rule  will  not  always  hold  good.  "  And  then  shall  that 
"Wicked  be  revealed,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume 
■with  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the 
brightness  of  his  coming  :  even  him,  whose  coming  is 
after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs, 
and  lying  wonders.  And  with  all  deceivableness  of 
unrighteousness."  2  Thes.  ii.  8,  9,  10.  Here  the 
Lord  is  the  nighest  antecedent  noun  to  the  pronoun 
him  and  whose,  by  which  the  writer  points  out  the  Man 
of  sin  with  all  his  satanic  working,  and  lying  wonders. 
The  Shakers  frequently  bring  this  text  to  prove  that 
Christ  in  his  second  coming  will  appear  to  the  world  as 
the  J\Icm  of  sin.  Certain  I  am  that  this  text  is  as  well 
adapted  to  prove  that  he  is  the  JMan  of  sin,  as  the  former 
is  to  prove  that  he  is  the  true  God.  In  a  solemn  ad- 
dress to  his  Father,  Christ  said  :  '•  This  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  thou  hast  sent."  Here  he  mentions  his 
Father  as  the  only  true  God  in  contradistinction  from 
liimself ;  but  if  he  is,  as  the  Trinitarians  say,  the  onl) 
true  God,  then  he  has  told  a  falsehood,  for  he  pointedly 
said  his  Father  was  the  only  true  God.  Christ  is  not 
represented  in  the  scriptures  as  the  original  source  of 
eternal  life,  but  as  the  IMediator  through  whom  it  is 
communicated  to  men.  Hence  Paul  says  :  "  The  gift 
of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord.'- 
Rom.  vi.  23. 

The  following  text  has  been  brought  to  prove  that 
Chiist  is  the  supreme  God  :  "  Feed  the  Church  of 
God  which  he  has  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Act. 
XX.  28.  Some  eminent  critics  say,  t)jis  reading  is  in- 
correct, and  that  the  ancient  manuscripts  afford  more 
evidence  for  reading  it,  "  The  Church  of  the  Lord.^^ — 
I  think  the  last  mentioned  reading  is  most  probably  cor- 
rect ;  but  as  it  respects  the  present  controversy,  I 
would  just  as  leave  it  should  stand  as  it  is.  because  it 
only  proves  that  Christ  is  called  God,  and  that  the 
Church  belongs  to  him,  neither  of  which  is  denied  by 
any  Christian  preacher  ;    but  take  notice,  wc  believe 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED.  117 

that  the  blessed  Saviour,  who  bled  and  died  for  the 
Church,  was  God  in  a  subordinate  sense.  We  do  not 
think  that  the  supreme  God  could  shed  his  blood  ;  be- 
cause the  scripture  informs  us  that  he  is  a  spirit,  and 
we  do  not  know  that  he  has  any  blood,  nor  do  we  beHeve 
that  he  ever  could  die,  or  suffer. 

The  following  text  has  been  brought  to  prove  the 
supreme  deity  of  Christ :  "  And  he  is  before  all  things, 
and  by  him  all  things  consist."  Col.  i.  17.  It  is  very 
possible  for  him  to  be  before  all  things,  and  at  the  same 
time  not  before,  nor  even  as  old  as  his  Father,  because 
God  the  Father  is  not  a  thing.  In  what  sense  he  is 
before  all  things  is  explained  to  us  in  the  15th  verse  ; 
"  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born 
of  every  creature."  This  shows  that  he  is  the  first  crea- 
ture that  was  born  into  existence.  It  would  not  be 
proper  to  say  of  God  the  Father,  that  he  is  the  first 
born  of  every  creature  ;  because  he  is  not  a  creaturej 
nor  was  he  ever  bom.  It  will  not  do  to  apply  it  to 
Christ's  human  body,  for  many  millions  of  creatures 
were  born  before  it  was.  JMor  will  it  do  to  apply  it  to 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  because  that  is  quite  an- 
other thing,  and  is  mentioned  in  the  18th  verse.  The 
former  says  :  "  He  is  the  first  b  ;rn  of  every  creature  ;" 
the  latter  says  :  ''  He  is  the  first-born  from  the  dead." 
The  two  sentences  are  of  very  different  meaning. — 
The  plain  truth  is,  that  the  pre-existent  Christ  was  the 
first  creature  that  was  born  into  existence,  and  in  this 
sense  he  is  before  all  things.  But  if  the  phrase,  all 
things,  means  every  being  in  the  universe,  then  he  must 
have  existed  before  the  Father,  for  he  is  a  being,  and 
if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  another  being,  he  must  have 
existed  before  it  did,  and  if  so,  he  existed  without 
the  spirit  of  God.  The  16th  verse  of  this  chapter  says^ 
for  by  him  all  things  were  created  that  are  in  heaven, 
and  that  are  in  earth  ;  but  this  is  not  more  true  than  the 
preceding  verse,  which  calls  him  a  creature.  And  if  he 
is  a  creature,  he  cannot  be  the  source  from  whom  all 
things  came,  but  must  be  the  instrument  by,  or  through 
whom  all  things  were  created.  Hence  the  next  verse 
shows,  that  he  was  dependant  on  God  for  all  this  ful- 
ness. "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should 
all  fulness  dwell." 


lis  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

And  then  the  20th  verse  holds  him  out  as  an  instrumeii^ 
in  the  hand  of  that  God,  who  created  him  and  gave  him 
to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church.  "  i\.nd  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross  ;  by  him  to 
reconcile  all  things  unto  himself;  by  him  I  say,  whether 
ihey  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven."  If,  when 
it  is  said  that  Christ  is  before  all  things,  it  means  that  he- 
is  before  every  being  in  the  universe,  then  when  it  is 
said  that  by  iiini  God  created  all  things,  it  must  mean 
that  by  him  God  created  every  being  in  the  universe  ; 
and  if  so,  he  must  have  created  himself  by  Jesus  Christ. 

If  I  should  say  you  are  the  oldes*:  of  all  the  men  in 
the  house,  it  would  be  faniy  calling  you  a  man :  and 
when  Paul  says  Christ  is  the  first  born  of  every  crea- 
ture, he,  as  fairly  calls  him  a  creature  ;  because  if  he 
never  was  born  till  the  reign  of  Augustus  Caesar,  he 
cannot  be  the  first  born  of  every  creature,  and  he  can 
neither  be  first  nor  last  born  of  every  creature,  if  he  is 
no  creature  at  all. 

The  exclamation  of  Thomas,  when  he  said  to  Christ, 
''  my  Lord  and  my  God,^'  has  bee-i  brought  to  prove 
the  supreme  divinity  of  Christ.  But  this  does  not  prove 
him  to  be  the  supreme  God  ;  nor  does  it  prove  that 
Thomas  thought  he  was,  because  1  conscientiously  call 
him  my  Lord,  and  niy  God,  and  yet  I  firmly  believe  that 
he  is  a  created  being,  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  words 
of  Thomas  to  prove  that  he  beheved  otherwise. 

There  is  no  probability  that  Thomas  believed  Christ 
was  the  supreme  God,  because  previous  to  then,  he  did 
not  believe  that  the  Saviour  was  aUve,  and  affirmed  that 
he  would  nut  believe  it,  unless  he  should  thrust  his  hand 
into  his  side,  and  his  finger  into  the  pnnt  of  the  nails  ; 
iind  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  be  instai;ianeously,con- 
verted  into  the  opinion  that  the  person  whom  he  had 
seen  crucified,  and  whom  till  that  mf>ment  he  had 
thought  was  dead,  was  the  supreme  God,  and  had  just 
come  to  life,  and  now  appeared  to  him  with  all  these 
grievous  wounds  by  which  he  had  been  murdered. 

My  opinion  is,  that  Thomas's  words  are  nothing  more 
than  an  exclamation  on  seeing  such  an  unexpected 
sight.  Many  persons  will  cry  out,  my  God,  my  God  ! 
or,  my  Lord,  God!  on  seeing  a  person  killed  by  acci- 
dent, or  on  unexpectedly  meeting  a  friend  whom  the} 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  119 

thought  was  dead  ;  but  this  is  no  proof  that  they  think 
iheir  friend  is  the  supreme  God.  The  law  of  Moses 
called  the  judges  of  Israel  Gods  ;  and  Thomas  might 
have  meant  by  this  expression  to  acknowledge  him  as 
his  ruler  and  his  judge. 

One  thing  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that  this  exclama- 
tion of  Thomas  was  never  written  to  make  us  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme  God  ;  because  in  the 
next  verse  after  Christ's  reply  to  Thomas,  John  says, 
**  And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence 
of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  :  But 
these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God."  Therefore,  if  we  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  we  believe  all  John 
designed  to  make  us  believe,  when  he  wrote  the  ex- 
clamation of  Thomas. 

I  will  now  notice  Isaiah  ix.  6,  7 :  "  For  unto  us  a 
child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given,  and  the  go- 
vernment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder  ;  and  his  name  shall 
be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the 
Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Of  the  in- 
crease of  his  government  and  peace,  there  shall  be  no 
end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  upon  his  kingdom, 
to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judgement,  and  with 
justice  from  henceforth,  even  for  ever.  The  zeal  ot' 
<he  Lord  of  hosts  will  perform  this." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  passage  inapplicable  to  Christ 
as  a  subordinate  being.  First,  he  is  called  a  child  born, 
and  a  son  given  ;  if  he  is  a  gift,  he  must  be  subordinate 
to  the  one  who  had  power  to  give  him.  It  would  be 
very  improper  to  say  that  any  one  could  give  us  the  su- 
preme God.  If  it  was  the  supreme  God  that  Isaiah  was 
speaking  of,  where  would  be  the  propriety  of  foretelling 
that  the  government  would  be  upon  his  shoulder,  and 
that  his  name  should  be  "  the  3Iighty  God  ?"  Surely  the 
government  was  then  on  his  shoulder,  nor  was  there 
any  probability  that  the  unchangeable  God  would  change 
his  name.  Christ  is  mighty,  because  all  might  or 
power,  in  heaven,  and  upon  earth  is  given  to  him,  and 
as  I  have  already  proved  that  the  title  God,  is  frequently 
given  to  creatures,  it  is  evident  that  he  could  be  the 
migh!y  God,  and  yet  a  subordinate  being.  The  judges  of 


120  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED* 

Israel  v.ere  called  Gods.  "  Thou  shalt  not  revile  tlie 
Gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy^people."  Exod.xxii.  28. 

"  Then  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  the  judges.'' 
;Heb.  to  the  Gods.)  Exod.  xxi.  6.  The  Father  has 
committed  all  judgement  unto  Christ,  and  by  him  ^vill 
judge  the  secrets  ot  all  men  ;  hence  the  propriety  of  pre- 
fixing the  definite  ariicie  to  his  title,  the  mighty  God, 
that  is,  the  mighty  Judge.  The  point  in  dispute  is  not 
whether  he  is,  or  is  not  called  God,  but  whether  he  is  so 
called  in  ihe  highest  sense. 

Christ  is  called  the  Bridegroom.  Joh.  iii.  29.  The 
church  is  called  the  Bride  the  Lamb's  wife.  Rev.  xxi. 
2 — 9.  Hence  Paul  says  to  the  church,  "  I  have  es- 
poused you  to  one  husband,  that  I  may  present  you  as 
a  chaste  Virgin  to  Christ."  2  Cor.  xi.  2.  If  Christ 
and  the  church  are  married,  he,  as  the  second  Adam, 
must  be  the  Father  ot'  the  spiritual  children,  as  the  first 
Adam  is  the  father  of  the  natural  ones.  Hence  Isaiah, 
personating  Christ  says,  "  Behold  I  and  the  children 
whom  the  Lord  hath  given  me."  Isa.  viii.  18.  The 
New  Testament  applies  this  to  Christ ;  "  And  again, 
behold  I  and  the  children  which  God  hath  given  me." 
Heb.  ii.  13.  Thus  we  find  in  what  sense  he  is  a  Fa- 
ther. He  is  the  everlasting  Father,  because  he  will  last 
forever,  but  that  is  no  proof  that  he  existed  from  all  eter- 
nity ;  because  many  things  that  had  a  beginning  are 
called  everlasting.  Thus  Jacob  said  to  Joseph,  "  the 
blessings  of  thy  father  have  prevailed  above  the  blessings 
of  my  progenitors  unto  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  ever- 
lasting hills."  Gen.  xlix.  26.  "  Their  anointing  shall 
surely  be  an  everlasting  priesthood."  Exod.  Ix.  15. 
•'  And  he  shall  have  it,  and  his  seed  after  him,  even  the 
covenantof  an  everlasting  priesthood."  Num.  xxv.  13. 
If,  because  he  is  called  everlasting  he  existed  from  all 
eternity,  then  the  hills,  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  the 
covenant  that  was  made  at  Horeb,  must  each  have  ex- 
isted from  all  eternity,  for  they  are  all  called  everlasting. 

If  in  the  above  text  Isaiah  had  been  speaking  of  the 
supreme  God,  he  would  hardly  have  said  that  "  Of  the 
increase  of  his  government,  and  peace,  there  shall  be  no 
end,  upon  the  throne  of  David  and  upon  his  kingdom  ;" 
because  it  is  not  probable  Isaiah  thought   that  the 


O'BJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  121 

infinite  God  was  David's  successor,  and  derived  his 
throne  from  him.  In  fact  the  idea  of  the  infinite  God 
increasing  in  government  and  peace,  and  inheriting 
David's  throne,  is  rather  too  absurd  to  need  refutation. 
The  last  sentence  of  this  passage  says,  <'  The  zeal  of  the 
Lord  of  hosts  will  perform  this."  Therefore  we  must 
regard  the  Lord  of  hosts  as  the  great  donor,  who  gave 
Christ  as  an  unspeakable  gift  to  mankind,  set  him  on 
the  throne  of  David,  and  superintends  all  the  economy 
of  his  reign. 

Some  people  argue,  that  if  Christ  can  be  with  his  peo- 
ple in  every  part  of  the  world  at  the  same  time,  he  must 
be  the  supreme  God  ;  but  the  argument  is  inconclusive, 
because  whatever  capacity  he  has,  is  derived  from  God, 
who  gave  him  all  the  power  in  heaven  and  earth.  Be- 
sides, Christians  generally  believe,  and  I  think  not  with- 
out scripture  authority,  that  the  Devil  can  influence 
wicked  people  in  every  part  of  the  world  at  the  same 
lime,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  he  is  the  supreme 
God.  It  is  as  easy  for  God  to  endue  his  creatures  with 
great  capacities,  as  with  small  ones. 

I  will  now  examine  the  passage  where  Christ  is  called 
Alpha,  and  Omega  :  "  I  aai  Alpha,  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  ending  saith  the  Lord,  which  is,  and 
which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty."  Rev. 
i.  8.  Many  wise  people  think  this  text  alludes  to  the 
supreme  Being,  and  if  it  does,  all  it  proves  about  Christ 
is,  that  one  of  the  same  appellations  is  given  to  him,  that 
is  given  to  the  Father.  I  am  not  certain  in  my  mind, 
but  I  think,  however,  it  most  probably  alludes  to  Christ : 
because  the  phraseology  seems  to  refer  to  his  states  of 
humiliation  and  exaltation,  and  his  second  coming :  be- 
sides, I  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  saying  the  Father  is 
to  come.  It  is  very  possible  for  him  to  be  the  Almighty, 
and  still  not  be  the  independent  God,  because,  he  can- 
not have  more  than  dl  the  might,  or  power  in  heaven 
and  earth,  and  that  much  he  himself  acknowledges  God 
gave  him. 

"  In  the  eleventh  verse  of  this  chapter,  the  Saviour 
says,  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last." 
This  cannot  mean  that  he  is  the  first  being  that  ever  ex- 
isted, because  if  it  does,  it  must  sueail  that  he  will  he 
11 


122  OBJECTIONS   ANSWEREO, 

the  last  being  that  will  exist ;  and  if  that  should  be  iht* 
case,  then  there  will  be  a  time,  when  every  being  in  the 
universe  except  Jesus  Christ  will  be  out  of  existence  ~ 
if  so,  God  the  Father  with  all  the  saints  and  angels  must 
be  annihilated.  Again,  if  he  is  the  first  being  in  exist- 
ence either,  as  it  respects  time,  or  dignity,  he  must  be 
older,  or  greater,  than  the  Father ;  and  if  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  another  person,  he  must  be  older  than  he.  But 
if  this  text  means  that  Christ  is  the  first  in  dignity,  it 
must  also  mean  that  he  is  the  last  in  dignity,  that  is. 
that  he  is  the  meanest  being  in  the  universe. 

The  most  probable  meaning  of  this  text  is,  that  he  is 
the  beginning,  and  ending  of  divine  revelation  to  man- 
kind. As  Alpha  is  the  beginning,  or  first,  and  Omega 
the  ending,  or  last  letter  of  the  Greek  Alphabet,  so 
Christ,  under  the  direction  of  God,  is  the  beginning  and 
the  end,  the  first  and  the  last  of  religious  knowledge  and 
comfort  to  us.  Hence  he  is  called  "  The  author  and 
finisher  of  our  faith."  Heb.  xii.  2.  "\Miatever  may  be 
the  true  meaning  of  Alpha  and  Omega,  it  is  certain  that 
the  person,  who  in  the  eleventh  verse  gives  himself  this 
appellation,  cannot  be  the  supreme  Being ;  because  in 
the  same  interview,  he  said  to  John,  "  Fear  not ;  I  am 
the  first  and  the  last :  I  am  he  that  liveth  and  was  dead.'* 
Verses  17, 18.  It  is  not  true  that  the  supreme  God  has 
been  dead. 

If  in  Rev.  xxi.  6,  the  appellation  Alpha  and  Omega. 
is  given  to  the  Father,  it  proves  nothing  relative  to  the 
dignity  of  his  Son  ;  but  if  it  is  given  to  the  Son,  it  is 
given  to  a  person,  who  under  that  title  said  he  had  beeis 
dead. 


fJBJECTIONS    ANSWERED,.  123 


CHAPTER  YII, 


[The  same  subject  continued.) 

'Ihis  expression  of  Peter,  "  Lord  thou  knoivest  all 
f^tmo-5,"  has  been  brought  to  prove  that  Christ  is  the 
omniscient  God.  If  by  the  phrase  cdl  things,  Peter 
meant  every  thing  in  the  universe,  he  contradicted  his 
Lord,  who  had  pointedly  said  that  he  did  not  know  when 
the  day  of  Judgement  would  be  :  and  I  would  much 
rather  believe  Jesus  Ch'ist  than  Peter.  I  think  all  that 
Peter  meant  was,  that  the  blessed  Saviour  knew  all 
things  respecting  him,  and  the  question  he  then  answer- 
ed. John  says  to  the  Christians,  "  But  ye  have  an  unc- 
tion from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things."-  1  Joh. 
ii.  20 — 27.  '*  The  same  anointing  teacheth  you  of  all 
things."  If  Peter's  expression  proves  that  Christ  is  the 
omniscient  God,  Saint  John's  will  prove  that  every 
Christian  is  the  omniscient  God. 

That  God  and  Christ  are  two  distinct  beings,  is  plain 
from  the  following  text :  "  I  charge  thee  before  God, 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  Angels,  that 
thou  observe  these  things."  1  Tim.  v.  21.  Here  there 
is  as  clear  a  distinction  drawn  between  God,  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  there  is  between  him  and  the  elect 
Angels. 

But,  says  one,  if  Christ  is  a  dependant  being,  would 
it  not  be  idolatry  to  worship  him  ? 

Answer.  The  word  worship^  signifies  adoration,  res- 
pect, honor,  &c.  And  it  is  perfectly  right  to  worship 
earthly  rulers  each  in  his  proper  place.  Thus  when  we 
call  a  judge,  his  worship,  or  the  court  the  worshipful 
court,  all  we  mean  by  it  is  that  they  should  be  honored, 
and  obeyed.  One  part  of  the  marriage  ceremony  in  the 
old  church  of  England  prayer  book  is,  "  With  my  body 
I  do  thee  worship."  When  the  Lord  says,  "  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve."    The  meaning  is  that  we  must  worship  and 


124  OBJECTIONS    ANSWEREJD, 

seiTG,  that  is,  honor  and  obey  him,  and  him  alone  as  the 
supreme  God.  He  does  not  mean  that  we  should  no? 
worship,  and  serve  our  magistrates  and  parents  in  their 
proper  places.  The  above  text  as  much  forbids  us  to 
serve  any  other  being  but  God,  as  it  does  to  worship  any 
other  than  he.  It  does  not  mean  that  we  should  not 
serve  our  rulers  nor  parents.  It  only  means  that  we 
should  not  give  to  any  other  being  that  honor  and  ser- 
vice which  we  owe  to  the  divine  being.  The  Jews 
•worshipped  their  king.  "  And  all  the  congregation 
blessed  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers,  and  bowed  down 
their  heads,  and  worshipped  the  Lord,  and  the  king/" 
\  Chro.  xxix.  20. 

Christ  says,  "  When  thou  art  bidden  of  any  man  to  a 
wedding,  go  and  sit  down  in  the  lowe.>t  room  ;  that  when 
he  that  bade  thee  cometh,  he  may  say  unto  thee  friend^ 
go  up  higher ;  then  shalt  thou  have  w  rship  in  the  pre- 
sence K>i  liic;.)  that  sit  at  meat  with  thee."  Luke  xiv. 
10.  If  it  was  wrong  to  worship  creatures,  Christ  would 
not  have  directed  us  to  use  means  to  get  our  neighbors 
to  worship  us. 

I  worship  the  Father  as  the  supreme  Being,  and  I 
worship  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  the  only  way  of  salvation,  and 
the  next  greatest  being  to  God  in  the  universe  :  and  if 
the>e  are  not  proper  views  ol  divine  worship,  I  do  not 
thiuK  my  Maker  will  condemn  me  for  them,  because 
they  are  the  i»est  I  can  learn  from  the  !!5criptures.  Christ 
has  said,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I,"  and  I  beheve 
him. 

But  says  one,  when  Joiin  fell  down  to  worship  an  an- 
gel,  he  forbade  him,  and  told  him  to  wr  ship  God  ;  there- 
fore it  must  be  wrong  to  worship  any  created  being.  I 
think  the  reasoi;  the  Angel  talked  so  to  John,  was  that 
he  saw  John  was  about  to  offer  him  undue  worship,  that 
is,  John  was  going  to  worship  him  as  the  supreme  Being, 
which  would  have  been  improper. 

I  will  now  give  a  few  reasons  for  thinking  tha:t  the 
very  angel,  who  forbade  John  to  worship  him  was  Jesus 
Christ.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  necessary  to  observe 
that  all  the  things  which  John  saw  in  this  vision,  are 
''  the  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto 


OBJECTIONS     ANSWERED.  125 

iiim  to  show  unto  his  servants,  things  which  must  shortly 
come  to  pass  ;  and  he  (God)  sent  and  signified  it  by  his 
Angel,  (that  is,  by  Jesus  Christ,)  unto  his  servant  John.'^ 
Rev.  i.  1.  That  Christ  was  the  Angel,  that  is,  the 
Messenger,  who  in  person  dehvered  this  revelation  to 
John,  appears  from  the  following  verses  of  the  same 
chapter.  "  I  was  in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,  and 
heard  behind  me  a  great  voice  as  of  a  trumpet,  saying  : 
I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last :  and  what 
thou  seest,  write  in  a  book,  and  send  it  unto  the  seven 

churches, And  I  turned  to  see  the  voice  that 

spake  with  me.  And  being  turned  I  saw  seven  golden 
candlesticks  ;  and  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  candlesticks 

one  like  unto  the  Son  of  man,  — And  when  I  saw 

him,  I  fell  at  his  feet  as  dead.     And  he  laid  his  right 
iiand  upon  me,  saying  unto  me,  fear  not ;  I  am  the 
first  and  the  last :  1  am  he  that  liveth  and  was  dead  : 
and  behold,  I  am  alive  forever  more,  amen  ;  and  have 
the  keys  of  hell  and  of  death.     Write  the  things  which 
thou  hast  seen,  and  the  things  which  are,  and  the  things 
which  shall  be  hereafter."     Verses  10,  11,  12,  13,  17, 
18,  19.     That  John  calls  Christ  an  Angel  appears  from 
the  following  text.     "  And  I  looked  and  behold  a  white 
cloud,  and  upon  the  cloud  one  sat  like  unto  the  Son  of 
man,  having  on  his  head  a  golden  crown,  and  in  his  hand 
a  sharp  sickle."     Rev.  xiv.  14 — 18.     "  And  cried  with 
a  loud  cry  to  him  that  had  the  sharp  sickle,  saying, 
thrust  in  thy  sharp  sickle,  and  gather  the  clusters  of  the 
vine  of   the  earth ;    for    her    grapes  are    fully  ripe." 
Verse  19th.      "  And  the  Angel  thrust  in  his  sickle 
into  the  earth,  and  gathered  the  vine  of  the  earth,  and 
cast  it  into  the  great  wine-press  of  the  wrath  of  God." 
Here  John  describes  the  Son  of  man  with  a  golden 
crown,   and  a    sharp    sickle :    and  then  says,   "  The 
Angel  thrust  in  his  sickle  into  the  earth,  and  gathered 
the  vine  of  the  earth,  and  cast  it]into  the  great  wine-press 
of  the  wrath  of  God.     And  the  wine-press  was  trodden 
without  the  city."     And  in  the  15th  verse  of  the  19th 
chapter  it  is  said  of  Christ  that  he  treadeth  the  vjine-press 
of  the  fierceness  and  icrath  of  Almighty  God.     John 
wrote  every  thing  in  this  book  by  the  authority,  and  as 
the  words  of  that  person  who  appeared  to  him  walking 
11* 


126  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

in  the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks  ;  and  that 
this  was  the  same  person  that  forbade  John  to  worship 
him,  appears  from  the  follovving  text :  "  And  he  said 
unto  me,  these  sayings  are  faithful  and  true  :  and  the 
Lord  God  of  the  holy  prophets  sent  his  Angel  to  show 
unto  his  servants  the  things  which  must  shortly  be  done. 
Behold  I  come  quickly,  blessed  is  he  that  keepeth  the 
sa}angs  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book.  And  I,  John,  saw 
these  things  and  heard  them.  And  when  I  had  heard 
and  seen,  I  fell  down  to  wo  ship  before  the  feet  of 
the  Angel,  which  showed  me  these  things.  And  he 
saith  unto  me,  see  thou  do  it  not :  for  I  am  thy  fellow  ser- 
vant, and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of  them  which 
keep  the  sayings  of  this  book  :  worship  God.  And  he 
saith  unto  me,  seal  not  the  sayings  of  the  prophecy  of 
this  book  :  for  the  time  is  at  hand.  He  that  is  unjust, 
let  him  be  unjust  still :  and  he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be 
filthy  still  :  and  he  that  is  righteous,  let  him  be  righte- 
ous still :  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be  holy  still.  And 
behold  I  come  quickly,  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to 
give  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be.  I  am 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first 
and  the  last.  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  (that  is, 
God's)  commandments,  that  they  may  have  right  to  the 
tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the 
city.  For  without  are  dogs,  and  sorcerers,  and  whore- 
mongers, and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and  whosoever 
loveth  and  maketh  a  lie.  I  Jesus  have  sent  mine  Angel 
to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the  churches."  Rev. 
xxii.  6 — 16.  In  this  last  clause  he  does  not  say,  "  I 
Jesus  have  sent  mine  Angel  to  testily  these  things  to 
my  servant  John;"  but  he  says,  *'  I  have  sent  mine  An- 
gel to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the  churches.'^ 
Therefore  that  Angel  or  Messenger,  who  preached  and 
testified  these  things  in  the  churches,  must  have  been 
John.  And  there  is  just  as  much  propriety  in  calling 
him  an  Angel,  as  there  is  in  calling  the  ministers  of  the 
seven  churches  in  Asia,  Angels.  If  you  read  this  pas*; 
sage  over  five  hundred  times,  you  will  find  every  time, 
that  the  person  who  fo  bade  John  to  worship  him  is  the 
one,  who  pronounces  judgement  upon  mankind,  saying, 
^' jffe  that  isjilthijj  let  him  be  filthy  siillf  and  he  that  is 


OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED.  127 

iigliieous,  let  him  be  righteous  still  "  and  who  represents 
himself  as  coming  quickly  to  reward  every  man  accord- 
ing as  his  work  shall  be  :  and  who  calls  himself  Alpha 
and  Omega,  and  rinaliy  asserts  that  he  is  Jesus.  The 
book  of  Revelation  both  opens  and  closes  with  an  in- 
terview  with  Jesus. 

I  have  heard  some  people  say,  that  if  they  thought 
Christ  was  a  dependant  bemg,  they  would  be  afraid  to 
trust  in  him  for  salvation,  but  1  thhik  such  objections 
are  unreasonable  :  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  on  him,  and 
trust  in  him  as  he  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  scriptures. 
Besides,  although  I  firriily  believe  the  Saviour  spoke 
the  truth  literally,  when  he  said,  "  lean  of  mine  own  self 
ch  nothing  !^^  and  when  he  said,  "  JSIij Father  is  gi^eater 
than  /;"  still  I  have  the  same  God,  the  same  divinity, 
to  trust  in  for  salvation,  that  the  trinitarians  have.  1 
trust  in  one  infinite  God,  and  they  do  not  profess  to 
trust  in  more  than  one.  I  hope  that  infinite  Being  will 
save  me  through  the  blessed  Jesus,  and  they  hope  the 
same.  I  pray  for,  and  trust  I  have  received  the  holy 
spirit  to  cleanse  my  heart,  and  enhghten  my  mind  ;  and 
they  profess  to  have  received  the  same. 

The  following  text  is  frequently  brought  to  prove  the 
supreme  divinity  of  Christ  :  "  For  in  him  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily."  Col.  ii.  9.  If  this 
text  proves  Christ  to  be  the  supreme  God,  the  follow- 
ing one  will  prove  every  Christian  to  be  the  supreme 
God.  And  to  know  the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth 
knowledge,  that  ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness 
of  God."  Ephes.  iii.  19  The  one  passage  states  as 
clearly,  that  the  Christians  may  be  filled  with  all  the 
fulness  of  God,  as  the  other  does  that  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  dwells  in  Christ  bodily.  The  Greek  Soma- 
tikos,  which  is  here  rendered  bodily,  signifies  cor- 
poreal, material,  as  in  1  Tim.  iv.  8,  '•  Bodily  exer- 
cise profiteth  httle."  And  Luk.  iii.  22.  "The 
Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape."  Gr.  So- 
matiko.  Joh.  ii.  21.  "  He  spake  of  the  temple  of  his 
body."  Gr.  Somatos.  I  find  no  fault  with  the  trans= 
lation,  but  mention  the  original  merely  to  show  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  Some  people  thmk  that  the 
word  bodily  means  ^Yholly,  or  entirely,  whereas  the  true 


128  OBJECTIONS    ANSWERED. 

meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  all  the  communicable  per- 
fections of  God  dwelt  in  Christ  while  he  was  here  in  his 
body."  If  I  did  believe  that  God's  person  fills  all 
space,  I  could  not  for  a  moment  think  that  his  bound- 
less essence  could  be  circumscribed  to  the  person  of 
Christ.  If  he  is  God  because  God  dwelt  in  him,  then 
it  must  be  his  body  that  is  God,  for  it  was  in  a  bodily 
sense  that  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  him.  When  a  mighty 
rushing  wind  filled  all  the  house  where  the  disciples 
were  sitting,  that  did  not  make  the  h>use  a  mighty 
rushing  wind  ;  and  when  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  did  not  make  them  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
so  when  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  in  Chi'ist  in  a 
bodily  sense,  that  did  not  make  his  body  the  supreme 
God.  One  thing  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that  he  is  de- 
pendant on  God  for  his  life,  for  the  holy  spirit,  and  all 
the  power  he  has.  Hence  he  says  :  "  As  the  Father 
hath  hfe  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  himself;  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute 
judgement  also."  Peter  says:  "  Therefore  being  at 
the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of 
the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this  which  you  now  see  and  hear."     Act.  ii.  33. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  the 
8th  chapter  of  Proverbs,  under  the  character  of  wis- 
dom. Accordingly  it  is  quoted  by  Trinitarians  to 
prove  his  supreme  Deity;  while  the  Anti-Trinitarians  ar- 
gue from  the  same  chapter,  that  he  was  God's  property, 
that  God  possessed  or  owned  him  m  the  beginning  of 
his  ways,  brought  him  forth,  and  set  him  up  ;  and  that 
he  must  therefore  be  a  dependant  being.  They  think 
it  would  be  very  improper  to  say  the  infinite  God  was 
possessed,  brought  forth,  or  set  up  by  any  one. 

My  opinion  is,  that  we  have  no  authority  to  say  that 
ivisdom,  which  is  personified  in  the  8th  and  9th  chap- 
ters of  Proverbs,  is  Jesus  Christ. 

My  first  reason  is,  because  there  is  no  text  in  the 
Bible  that  applies  it  to  him  :  therefore,  to  say  the  best 
of  it,  it  is  only  an  opinion  destitute  of  scripture  proof. — 
I  know  Christ  is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness, 
sanctification  and  redemption,  but  that  does  not  prove 
r-hat  he  is  either  of  these  abstractedly,  because,  if  he  is; 


OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED,  129 

dienhe  is  not  a  person,  but  a  mere  attribute,  or  quality. 
3Iy  next  reason  is,  that  wisdom  is  called  she  and  ha^ 
all  through  those  chapters,  and  it  is  both  ridiculous  and 
palpably  false  to  call  Jesus  Christ  a  female.  The 
Trinitarians  take  the  Sth  chapter  of  Proverbs  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  and  I  think  their  com- 
ment on  it  is  rather  too  ridiculous  to  be  ridiculed,  be- 
cause, according  to  their  comment,  the  supreme  God 
and  Father  of  all  must  be  a  she.  In  some  languages  I 
know  that  wisdoui  is  in  the  feminine  jiender,  but  I  know 
of  no  rule  in  any  language  to  call  Je-us  Christ,  or  any 
other  male  person,  a  she,  except  it  is  the  rule  of  lying. 
In  the  twelfth  verse  he  says  :  "  I  wisdom  dwell  with 
prudence,  and  find  out  knowledge  of  witty  inventions." 
From  this  it  appears  that  if  wi-dom  is  a  Deity  she  has 
an  associate  Goddess,  called  Prudence,  by  the  advan- 
tage of  whose  society  she  finds  out  knowledge  of  witty 
inventions.  But  ('hnstiatis  do  not  generally  think  this 
is  very  applicable  to  the  supreme  Being,  because  they 
think  he  is  incapable  of  improving  in  knowledge,  and 
witty  inventions.  In  the  fourteenth  verse  he  says  : — 
*'  Counsel  is  mine,  and  sound  wisdom."  If  Christ  is 
the  person  here  speaking,  these  last  words  will  amount 
to  this,  "  Counsel  is  mine,  and  suund  Jesus  Christ  is 
mme."  In  the  next  clause  of  this  verse,  Solomon 
makes  wisdom  tell  us  who  she  is.  She  says,  "  I  am 
understanding."  She  did  not  say,  "  I  am  the  supreme 
God,"  nor  did  she  say,  "  I  am  Jesus  Christ."  There- 
fore, for  us  to  say  so,  is  not  only  an  assertion  without 
proof,  but  it  is  flat  contradiction  of  Solomon's  own 
words,  unless  it  cai.  be  proved  that  the  words  under- 
standing and  Jesus  Christ  are  synonymous.  We  know 
that  wisdom,  and  understanding  are  sufficiently  synony° 
mous  to  be  explained  one  by  the  other.  The  writer 
continues  to  personify  wisdom,  and  hold  it  up  in  the 
character  of  an  amiable  female  till  he  comes  to  the 
11th  verse  of  the  9th  chapter.  And  in  the  10th  verse 
he  says  :  "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  oi 
wisdom,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  holy  is  understand- 
ing."  Here  he  mentions,  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  wisdom, 
the  knowledge  of  the  holy,  and  understanding,  as  being 
all  four  synonymous.     But  if  wisdom  is  Jesus  Christy 


130  bBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

tlienthe  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  JesU:^ 
Christ. 

Solomon  personifies  other  things  besides  wisdom  ; 
he  says  :  "  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  is  raging.'- 
Prov.  XX.  1.  *' Jealousy  is  cruel  as  the  grave."  Song, 
viii.  6.  Wine,  and  jealousy  of  themselves  unconnect- 
ed with  any  person,  can  no  more  mock,  rage,  or  exer- 
cise cruelty,  than  wisdom  separate  from  any  person, 
can  rejoice,  or  take  delights.  David  says  ;  *'  Let  not 
the  foot  of  pride  come  against  me."  Psal.  xxxvi.  11, 
Solomon  personifies  folly  and  madness.  Hence  he 
speaks  of  the  "  Wickedness  of  folly,  even  the  foolish- 
ness of  madness."  Eccle.  vii.  25.  I  think  all  he 
meant  in  the  8th  chapter  was  to  set  forth  the  excellency 
of  wisdom  by  showing  that  God  possessed  it  in  the  be- 
ginning of  his  ways,  that  he  brought  it  forth,  displayed, 
or  set  it  up  from  everlasting  in  all  his  works  of  creation, 
and  providence.  Hence  speaking  of  wisdom  in  the 
third  chapter  of  Proverbs,  he  says  :  "  The  Lord,  by 
wisdom,  hath  tounded  the  earth  ;  by  understanding 
hath  he  established  the  heavens  :  by  his  knowledge 
the  depths  are  br  ken  up,  and  the  clouds  drop  down  the 
dew."  Here  wisdom,  understanding,  and  knowledge, 
are  all  mentioned  as  synonymous  :  but  in  the  verses 
immediately  preceding,  '.\  isdom  is  called  it,  she  and  her; 
and  IS  represented  as  hoidmg  length  of  days  in  her  right 
hand,  and  in  her  leit,  richp-^  and  honor. 

If  Paul  had  believed  that  Jesus  Christ  is  wisdom,  he 
would  hardly  have  said,  that  "  The  world  by  wisdom 
knew  not  God." 

Some  people  say,  that  if  Christ  had  not  been  the  su- 
preme God,  he  could  not  have  fasted  forty  days  ;  but  I 
think  that  if  he  had  been  the  supreme  God,  fasting  forty 
days  would  not  have  made  him  hungry.  Both  Mose« 
and  Elijah  fasted  forty  days. 


ORIGIN   AND   n'BSTANCE   OF    CHRIST,  '131 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


6s    THE    ORIGIN    ASD    SUBSTANCE    OF   JESUS    CHrIST, 


'  I  will  now  offer  a  few  reasons  for  believing  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  by  creation,  and  not  by  de- 
rivation ;  or  that  he  is  God's  Son  not  in  the  sense  that 
Isaac  was  the  son  of  Abrahc 
Adam  was  the  Son  of  God. 

Some  people  contend  that  Christ  is  dependant  on 
God  for  all  he  has,  but  still  they  think  he  is  uncreated  : 
they  say  he  is  God's  Son  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word  :  that  as  he  derived  his  existence  from  God,  he  is 
therefore  of  the  same  specific  substance  as  the  Father. 
I  beheve  that  Barten  VV.  Stone,  and  Xoah  Worcester, 
have  both  advocated  this  sentiment.  I  never  read  the 
second  edition  of  brother  Stone's  address  to  the 
Christian  Church,  nor  his  letters  to  Doctor  Blythe,  but 
I  read  his  letter  to  Moreland,  and  his  letter  to  Spencer 
Clark,  in  both  of  which  he  advocates  the  doctrine.  I 
have  read  none  of  brother  U'orcester's  writings,  except 
two  or  three  letters  in  his  Bil?le  news,  where  he  attempts 
to  prove  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  proper 
•sense  ;  that  is,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  in  the  same 
sense  that  Isaac  was  the  Son  ot  Abraham. 

Although  I  highly  esteem  those  brethren,  I  can  by  n^ 
means  fall  in  with  them  on  this  point.  Though  I  have 
seen  some  of  brother  Millard's  writings,  I  cannot  re- 
collect of  having  ever  read  a  whole  page  from  his  pen 
respecting  the  Son  of  God,  of  course  I  know  not  which 
side  of  the  question  he  has  taken.  I  read  some  in  one  of 
brother  James  Miller's  books,  but  cannot  at  present  re- 
collect a  word  of  it. 

It  is  impossible  for  God  to  have  a  Son  m  the  natural 
or  proper  sense  of  the  word,  unless  he  is  changeable : 
because  according  to  all  the  knowledge  we  have  of  na- 
tural generation  it  implies  change. 

If  Christ  is  uacrentecl,  and  derived  his  being  from 


132  ORIGIN   AND   SUBSTANCE    OP   CHHIST, 

the  substance  of  his  Father,  then  God's  substance 
must  have  been  diminished  in  proportion  to  the  quantity 
of  it,  that  was  derived  from  him  to  form  his  Son.  If 
that  substance  of  which  the  Son  was  formed,  was,  at 
the  time  it  was  derived,  or  separated  from  the  Father, 
inactive,  uninteihgent,  and  unorganized,  then  he  is  of 
no  more  dignity  than  if  he  had  been  made  of  any  other 
inactive,  unmtelhgent,  unorganized  substance.  If  a  part 
of  God's  substance  became  disorganized,  inactive,  un- 
inteihgent, and  was  separated  from  him  to  form  his  Son 
of,  he  has  changed  and  become  less  than  he  was,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  au^immutable,  nor  an  infinite  Being. 
If  that  substance  of  which  Christ  consisted  in  his  pre-ex- 
istent  state,  always  existed,  and  was  from  all  eternity 
an  intelligent,  active,  organized  being,  then  Christ 
must  have  existed  a  distict  person  \\ith  his  Father 
from  all  eternity,  because  organization,  activity,  and 
intelligence  constitute  person. 

There  can  be  no  mistake  in  this  reasoning.  Jesus 
Christ  is  either  a  being  or  a  nonentity.  If  he  is  a  be- 
ing, his  substance  is  either  created,  or  uncreated.  If 
the  substance  of  his  being  is  uncreated,  it  either  eternal- 
ly existed  as  a  distinct  being  from  God,  or  else  was  in- 
corporated in,  identified  with,  and  was  a  part  of  the  sub- 
stance of  God's  person.  If  Christ  was  a  part  of  the  sub- 
stance of  God's  person,  and  has  become  a  distinct  per- 
son, and  a  distinct  being  from  God,  then  the  essence  of 
the  Father's  being  must  be  just  as  much  less  than  it 
once  was,  as  the  uncreated  substance  of  Christ  is 
large. 

If  all  of  Christ,  except  his  human  body,  is  uncreated, 
and  the  same  substance  of  the  Father,  he  is  no  more 
derived  from  the  Father  than  the  Father  is  from  him  ; 
because  if  you  divide  a  fraction  from  a  large  substance, 
which  is  not  of  itself  changeable,  such  as  glass,  the 
smaller  part  is  no  more  derived  from  the  larger,  than 
the  larger  is  from  the  smaller.  This  is  not  the  case  with 
the  human  family  in  propagating  their  species  ;  as  their 
whole  bodies  are  continually  changing,  the  substance 
of  which  their  offspring  is  propagated  has  but  a  tran- 
sient existence  in  them.  But  God  is  unchangeable  in 
his  essence :  all  the  substance  that  ever  existed  in  his 


SUBSTANCE    AND    ORIGIN    OF    CHRIST.  133 

-"crsoii  is  there  yet.  We  do  not  believe  that  his  person 
»:an  be  diminished  by  evacuations,  and  recruited  by 
eating ;  therefore  it  is  impossible  that  a  part  of  God's 
substance  should  be  separated  from  him  to  form  anoth- 
er Being. 

If  Christ  is  God's  Son  in  the  same  sense  that  Isaac 
was  the  Son  of  Abraham,  God  must  have  had  a  wife, 
for  Abraham  had  one.  But,  says  one,  is  it  not  possi- 
ble for  God  to  have  a  Son  formed  of  his  own  substance 
without  that  son  having  a  mother  1  To  this  I  answer, 
that  if  Christ  is  God's  Soi  without  a  mother,  he  is  not 
the  Son  of  God  in  the  sense  that  Isaac  was  Abraham's 
Son,  for  he  had  a  mother. 

If  God  of  his  own  substance  brought  forth  Christ 
without  the  instrumentality  of  a  mother,  then  he  must 
be  a  female,  and  the  mother  of  Christ,  because  bearing 
a  child,  or  bringing  forth  young,  is  an  infallible  mark  of 
;i  female. 

Man  has  no  choice  whether  his  offspring  will  be  wise 
or  foolish,  male  or  female,  weak  or  strong,  perfect  or 
jm^ierfect,  but  v.'hen  God  brought  his  Son  into  exis- 
?  ence,  none  of  these  things  were  contingent  with  him  : 
therefore  he  could  not  have  a  Son  in  the  same  sense 
that  man  has. 

I  think  Christ  is  a  created  Being,  and  those  passage? 
that  say  he  was  begotten  always  allude  either  to  his 
miraculous  conception,  or  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  The  word  begott  n^  m  its  proper  sense,  that  is, 
according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term,  im- 
plies plurality;  to  beget,  is  this  the  united  a.ct  of  tv/o  : 
therefore  the  pre-existent  Christ  could  not  have  been 
begotten  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  unless  he  had 
a  mother  as  well  as  a  father. 

That  Christ  is  a  created  being,  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing texts  :  "  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible 
(rod,  the  first  born  of  every  creature."  Col.  i.  15.— 
Here  he  is  called  a  creature,  and  as  all  creatures  are 
•  ■reated,  of  course  he  must  have  been  created.  This 
text  cannot  mean  that  his  human  body  was  the  first 
horn  of  every  creature,  because  the  bodies  of  all  the 
people,  that  had  lived  from  the  creation  till  then,  wer  j 
born  before  his  bod  v.  Then  it  must  mean  that  glori- 
12 


134  SUBSTANCE    AXD    ORIGIN    OF    CHRIST. 

ous  Son  of  God^>ho  was  with  the  Father  before  th-' 
world  was.  As  sure  as  this  text  is  true,  Jesus  Christ  i'-r 
a  created  being.  "  And  unto  the  angel  of  the  Church 
of  the  Laodiceans  write  ;  these  things  saith  the  Amen. 
the  faithful  and  true  Witness,  the  beginning  of  the  crea^ 
tion  of  God."  Rev.  iii.  14.  Some  people  say  the  com- 
mon translation  of  this  text  is  not  right,  and  that  the 
Greek  word  arche.  which  is  here  rendered  beginning, 
should  be  rendered  principal,  or  greatest ;  but  although 
it  is  so  rendered  in  some  passages  of  the  new  testament? 
it  is  frequently  rendered  beginning  as  in  the  above  text; 
the  true  meaning  of  which  is  in  my  opinion,  that  Christ 
is  the  first  being  that  God  created.  That  arche  signi-. 
fies  beginning  in  point  of  time,  appears  from  the  follow- 
ing texts  :  "In  the  beginning  vras  the  word, — —The 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God."  Joh.  i.  1,2. 
"  Have  ye  not  read,  that  he,  which  made  them  at  the 
beginning  made  them  male,  and  female?"  Mat.  xix. 
4.  "  All  these  are  the  beginning  of  sorrows."  Mat, 
xxiv.  8.  "How  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation,  which  at  the  first  began  (Gr.  archen)  to  be 
spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by 
them  that  heard  him?"  Heb.  ii.  3.  "  Then  said  they 
unto  him,  who  art  thou  ?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
even  the  same  that  I  said  unto  you  from  the  begin- 
ning.^^ Joh.  viii.  25.  "  I  am  Alpha,  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  ending,"  Rev.  i.  8.  "  I  am  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end."  Rev.  xxi.  6. 
"  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end, 
the  first  and  the  last."  Chap.  xxii.  13.  Wherever  the 
word  beginning  occurs  in  these  passages,  the  Greek  is 
arche,  the  same  that  is  rendered  beginning  in  the  text 
which  says,  Christ  is  the  beginning  of  the  creation  oj 
God.  But  even  if  the  word  should  be  rendered  princi- 
pal, or  chief,  it  would  not  effect  the  argument,  because; 
he  would  still  be  one  of  the  creation  of  God. 

Some  people  contend  that  this  text  means,  that  he  is 
the  beginner  of  the  creation  of  God,  but  if  they  would 
read  the  above  passages,  and  change  the  word  begin- 
ning  into  beginner  every  where  it  occurs,  I  think  they 
would  be  convinced  of  their  mistake.  For  instance  t 
"  In  the  beginner  \Vd.s  the  word."     "  The  same  was  if> 


SUBSTANCE    AND   ORIGIN   OP    CHRIST.  13B 

liie  beginner  with  God."  Joh.  i.  1,  2.  *'  Have  ye  not 
read  that  at  the  beginner  God  made  them  male  and  fe- 
male?' Mat.  xix.  4.  "  They  said  unto  him,  who  art 
thou?  And  he  said  unto  them,  even  the  same  that  I 
said  unto  you  from  the  beginner.-^     Joh.  viii.  25. 

Another  reason  I  have  for  thinking  that  the  text  under 
consideration  does  not  mean  that  Jesus  is  the  beginner 
of  the  creation  of  God,  is,  that  it  does  not  say  so,  but 
isays  the  reverse,  viz.,  that  he  is  the  beginning  of  the 
creation  of  God.  When  Jacob  said,  Reuben  was  the 
begitming  of  his  strength,  he  did  not  mean  that  Reuben 
was  the  beo-inner  of  his  strenoth.  If  Christ  was  the 
beginner,  that  is  the  prime,  or  original  cause  of  crea- 
tion, then  the  creation  must  belong  to  Christ  and  not  to 
God  ;  but  the  creation  is  every  where  in  scripture  ca]l- 
ed  God's,  and  Paul  informs  us  that  the  Father  is  the 
prime  cause  of  all  things.  Hence  he  says  :  "  To  us 
there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things, 
and  we  in  him,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
are  all  things,  and  we  by  him." 

When  it  is  said,  that  Alpha  is  the  beginning  of  the  Al- 
phabet, it  does  not  mean  that  it  was  the  beginner  of  it, 
nor  does  it  mean  that  Alpha  is  the  first  thing  that  ever 
existed,  the  style,  or  the  pen  with  which  it  was  made, 
existed  before  it  did  ;  but  it  means  that  in  writing  the 
Alphabet,  Alpha  is  the  iirst  letter  we  make,  and  most 
probably  the  first  that  the  Greeks  ever  did  make  :  so 
Christ  is  not  the  first  being  that  ever  existed,  nor  the 
bes^nner  of  creation,  but  he  is  the  first  creature  that 
God  ever  made.  The  above  text  cannot  mean  that  his 
body  was  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God,  because 
it  was  neither  the  first  nor  the  greatest  being  that  God 
ever  created.  It  is  probable  that  the  least  immortal 
spirit  that  ever  was  created,  is  greater  than  his  human 
body  would  be  without  a  soul.  As  sure  as  this  text  is 
true,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  first  creature  that  God  ever 
created. 

Paul  says  :  "  And  so  it  is  written,  the  first  man  Ad- 
am was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a 
quickening  spirit."  1  Cor.  15 — 45.  This  text  as  posi- 
tively says,  that  the  last  Adam  was  made,  as  that  the 
iirst  one  was.      If  it  does  not  mean  that  the  last  Adam 


136  SUBSTANCE    AND    ORIGO    OF    CHRisT 

was  created,  it  cannot  mean  that  the  first  one  was ;  [n- 
same  language  is  applied  to  both.  It  cannot  mean  hip 
body,  because  it  does  not  say  he  was  made  a  living 
body,  but  it  says  he  was  made  a  qaickening  spirit.  It 
is  true  the  words  icas  made,  whert  they  occur  last  m 
this  text  are  a  supply,  but  it  is  certain  that  they  do  nor 
change  the  sense.  Christ's  spirit  was  created  as  sme 
as  Adam  was  created. 

"  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given 
to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself  '  Joh.  v.  26.  I* 
Christ  is  uncreated,  his  substance  must  have  existed  in 
the  living  Father  from  all  eternity  ;  if  so,  how  could  the 
Father  give  to  the  Son  to  have  lii-  in  himself?  It 
would  be  giving  life  to  himself,  or  to  some  of  his  owi? 
substance.  If  the  substance  of  Christ  existed  alive 
from  all  eternity,  he  never  could  have  received  life. — 
That  night  the  Saviour  was  betrayed,  he  said  :  "  My 
soul  is  exceedingly  sorrowful  unto  dea  ii."  Mark.  xiv. 
34.  If,  as  some  people  contend,  the  :>re-existent  Sou 
of  God,  is  the  soul  of  Christ,  and  the  s  oe  specific  sub- 
stance of  the  Father,  how  could  his  sowl  be  exceeding 
sorrowful  unto  death  ?  Could  the  uncreated  substance 
of  God  be  subject  to  sorrow  and  death? 

If  God  is  an  undivided,  indivisible  spirit,  how  could 
a  being  distinct  from  himself,  be  formed  of  his  sub- 
stance ?  If  God  is  a  spirit,  thai  is,  i{  sjnrit  is  the  sub- 
stance of  his  being,  and  if  Christ's  soul,  vir  spirit  is  a 
part  of  that  very  uncreated  substance,  t';en  where  is 
the  propriety  of  his  receiving  the  Holy  Spiat,  or  being 
anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  It  would  be  one  part 
of  the  spirit  or  substance  of  God  receiving  another  part 
of  it.  It  would  be  anointing  God's  spirit  with  the  spirit 
of  God.  It  would  be  like  taking  a  gallon  oi  oil  out  oi 
a  cask,  and  then  anointing  that  gallon  with  some  more 
oil  from  the  same  cask.  Adding  oil  to  other  oil  of  the 
same  specific  substance,  does  not  give  it  any  properties 
of  oil,  v.'hichit  had  not  before;  so  if  Christ's  soul, or  spirit., 
is  the  same  specific  substance  of  God,  ana  if  God's 
spirit  is  the  same  substance  of  himself;  then  anoint- 
ing with  God's  spirit  could  not  impart  to  him  any  wis- 
dom, holiness,  or  other  quahty  of  God  which  he  did  not 
nossess  before.     It  is  said  of  Christ  that  he  ''  Grew. 


SUBSTANCE    AND   ORIGIN    OF    CHRIST.  137 

and  waxed  strong  in  spirit."  Luke  ii.  40.  If  his  spirii 
is  the  same  specific  substance  of  the  Father,  how  could 
it  wax  strong  ?  Can  the  uncreated  substance  of  God 
wrow  stronger  ? 

When  it  is  said  that  Christ  was  made  of  a  woman, 
the  meaning  is  that  some  of  her  substance  was  modi- 
fied, or  changed  into  his  infant  body.  If  his  soul  was 
uncreated,  but  derived  from  his  Father,  then  a  part  of 
God's  substance  must  have  been  formed  into  the  soul- 
or  pre-existent  person  of  Christ ;  if  so,  the  substance 
of  God's  person  has  as  truly  changed  and  become  les?, 
as  Mary's  person  changed  in  bearing  Christ.  This 
doctrine  appears  to  me  equally  as  absurd,  and  unscrip- 
tural,  as  that  which  teaches  that  Christ  is  a  distinct  per- 
son, coequal,  coessential,  and  coeternal  with  God. 

The  passages  that  say  he  is  the  first  begotten,  and 
the  only  begotten,  have  been  brought  to  prove  that  he 
derived  his  substance  from  God,  and  is  uncreated. 

When  he  is  called  the  first  begotten,  it  may  mean 
that  he  is  the  first  one  that  was  raised  from  the  dead ; 
because  he  is  called,  "  The  first  born  from  the  dead." 
Col.  i.  IS.  And  "  The  first  begotten  of  the  dead."— 
Rev.  i.  5.  This  will  appear  more  probable,  by  com- 
paring the  following  texts  :  "  Thou  art  my  son;  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Psal.  ii.  7.  "  He  raised 
up  Jesus  again ;  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second 
Psalm  :  *'  Thou  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begot- 
ten thee."  Act.  xiii.  33.  The  phrase,  first  begotten, 
naturally  implies  that  there  were  others  begotten  besides 
him  ;  therefore  if  it  means  that  he  was  formed  of  God's 
substance,  and  is  uncreated,  it  must  mean  that  he  is  the 
oldest  of  other  beings  that  have  been  formed  in  th^ 
same  way. 

His  being  called  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
proves  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God  in  a  peculiar  sense. 
but  does  by  no  means  prove  that  he  is  an  uncreated  be- 
ing ;  because  it  is  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  the 
phrase  only  begotten,  refers  to  his  miraculous  rconcep- 
tion,  seeing  it  is  particularly  connected  with  the  cir- 
cumstance of  his  being  made  flesh ;  hence,  John  says  : 
^'  And  the  word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  amonc- 
.us.  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  tlie  only  be- 
12* 


13S  SUBSTANCE    AND    ORIGIN    OF    CHRIST, 

gotten  of  the  Father."  Joh.  i.  14.  The  angel  saia  U* 
Mary  :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  an€4 
the  power  of  the  highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  there- 
fore, also,  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee, 
shall  be  called  the  Son  V  God."  Luk.  i.  35.  The 
words  only  begoiten  may  mean  the  only  heir,  as  in  Heb. 
xi.  17,  "  Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered  up  Isaac; 
and  he  that  had  received  the  promises,  offered  up  his 
only  begotten  Son."  Abraham  had  before  that  time 
begotten  Ishmael  by  Hager,  and  perhaps  some  others 
by  Keturah  :  but  Isaac  was  his  only  heir ;  so  God  has 
appointed  Christ  "  heir  of  all  things."  And  as  the 
Jews  were  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  in 
virtue  of  their  descent  from  Isaac,  so  we  heir  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel  in  virtue  of  our  union  with  Christ. 

That  Christ  is  called  God's  own  Son,  his  first  begot- 
ten, and  his  only  begotten,  is  a  proof  that  he  is  the  Sou 
of  God  in  a  particular  sense,  but  it  by  no  means  proves 
that  he  is  an  uncreated  being  ;  because  the  words  begoi- 
ten and  created,  at  least  sometimes  signify  the  same 
thing,  which  will  appear  from  the  following  passages  oi 
scripture.  "  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works."  Ephes.  ii.  10.— 
"  And  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which,  after  God,  is 
created  in  righteousness,  and  true  holiness."  Chap.  iv. 
24.  "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God  ;  and  renew 
a  right  spirit  within  me."  Psal.  li.  10.  In  each  of 
these  passages  the  words  created  and  create  refer  to  the 
new  birth  ;  and  in  the  following  texts  the  same  thing  is 
expressed  by  the  word  begotten.  Blessed  be  the  God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  wliich,  according 
to  his  abundant  mercy,  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  u 
lively  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
dead."  1  Pet.  i.  3.  "Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God  :  and  every  one  that  loveth 
him  that  begat,  loveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  him." 
"  We  know  that  whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not  : 
but  he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepethhimselt^,  and  thai 
wicked  one  toucheth  him  not."  1  Joh.  v.  1 — 18. 
That  creation  and  generation  are  sometimes  synony- 
mous, appears  still  more  evident  from  the  following 
scriptures  :     ''  This  shall  be  ^^•l■ittcn  for  the  generation 


SUBSTANCE    AND    ORIGIN    OF    CHRIST.  139 

to  come  ;  and  the  people,  which  shall  be  created,  shall 
praise  the  Lord."  Psal.  cii.  18.  '"  These  are  the 
generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  when  the}- 
were  created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made  the 
earth  and  the  heavens.     Gen.  ii.  4. 

I  think  Christ  is  pre-eminently  the  Son  of  God  in 
four  respects.  1.  He  is  the  oldest  Son  of  God.  2. 
He  is,  perhaps  the  only  being  that  God  ever  made  with- 
out doing  it  through  an  agent,  or  instrument.  3.  He  is 
the  only  one  that  ever  was  conceived  by  the  miraculous 
interposition  of  God  without  the  means  of  a  natural 
tather.  And  4.  He  is  the  first  born  from,  or  first  be- 
gotten of  the  dead.  All  these  marks  of  distinction  have 
l>een  conferred  on  him  by  his  Father,  from  whom  he  has 
received  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth ;  and  by  whom 
he  is  made  head  over  all  things  to  the  church. 

Paul  says  that  Christ,  in  his  times,  shall  show  •'  TMio 
is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings, 
and  liord  of  lords  ;  who  only  hath  immortality,  dwelling 
in  the  light  ;  which  no  man  can  approach  unto  ;  whom 
no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see."  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  16. 
It  is  impossible  that  this  only  Potentate  was  Jesus 
Christ,  because  he  is  a  person  whom  Jesus  Christ  is  to 
show  :  besides  Paul  would  not  say  of  Christ  that  no  man 
liath  seen,  nor  can  see  him. 

If  the  soul  of  Christ  is  uncreated,  and  of  the  same 
specific  substance  of  the  Father,  how  could  it  be  said 
of  the  Father,  that  he  only  hath  immortality  ?  If  Christ's 
substance  is  uncreated,  and  the  same  of  the  Father's, 
he  n-just  have  immortality  in  the  same  sense  that  thf 
Father  has. 


140  tTHRIST    AN    AXGEL    OR   MESSENGER. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


A    FEW    REASONS    FOR    BELIEVING  THAT  CHRIST  IS    MEKTIOKED  IN' 
THE  SCRIPTURES  UNDER  THE  CHARACTER  OF  AN  ANGEL. 


'*  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare 
the  way  before  me  :  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall 
suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the 
covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in :  behold  he  shall  come, 
saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  But  who  may  abide  the  day  of 
his  coming  ?  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ? 
for  he  is  like  a  refiners  fire,  and  like  fuller's  soap  1  And 
he  shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver.  Mai.  iii. 
1,2,  3.  The  Hebrew  JSlalacha,  which  is  here  ren- 
dered messenger,  is  the  Hebrew  word  that  is  mostly,  iV 
not  always  translated  angel  in  the  old  testament.  Al- 
though this  prophecy  was  delivered,  perhaps  three  hun- 
dred and  ninety  seven  years  before  the  coming  of  Christ. 
it  speaks  of  him  as  the  Lord  whom  the  Jews  sought, 
and  the  Angel,  or  Messenger  who  delivered  to  Moser^ 
the  covenant  that  God  made  with  them  at  Horeb,  and 
represents  him  as  the  owner  of  the  Jewish  temple.  This 
in  my  opinion  establishes  the  question  of  his  pre-exist- 
ence  beyond  dispute.  The  phraseology  of  the  above 
passage  proves  that  Christ  existed  before  John  the 
Baptist  did.  "  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he 
shall  prepare  the  way  before  me."  It  appears  from  the 
first  chapter  of  Luke,  that  John  the  Baptist  was  born 
into  the  world  six  months  before  Christ.  Xow,  if  Christ 
never,  existed  till  he  was  born  in  the  flesh,  how  could  ho 
send^John  the  Baptist  before  him  ?  Can  a  nonentity  send 
a  messenger  to  prepare  the  way  before  it  ?  It  will  not- 
do  to  say  that  Christ  talked  to  John  in  person,  and  sent 
him  to  preach  after  they  were  both  born,  because  John 
never  knew  Christ  till  he  baptized  him.  He  says,  "  1- 
knew  him  not :  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with 
water,  the  same  said  unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou  shall 
'see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  fhe 


CHRIST   AN    ANGEL   OR   MESSENGER.  141 

same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'* 
Joh.  i.  33. 

Malachi  in  this  prophecy,  speaks  of  two  messengers. 
One  was,  "  The  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly 
come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  cove- 
nant whom  ye  delight  in,"  who  was,  no  doubt,  Jesus 
Christ.  And  the  other  was  the  Messenger,  that  was 
sent  before  him,  viz.  John  the  Baptist,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  scriptures.  <'  Behold  I  will  send 
you  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  coming  of  the  great 
and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord."  In  the  following  textS; 
Christ  applies  both  these  predictions  to  the  Baptist.— 
'^  For  this  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  send 
my  messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy 
way  before  thee.^'  Mat.  xi,  10,  verse  14.  "  And  if 
ye  will  receive  it,  this  is  Elias,  which  was  for  to  came." 

This  Angel  of  the  Covenant  was  to  be  as  a  refiner's 
fire,  and  a  purifier  of  silver,  which  character  John  ap- 
plies to  Christ  in  these  words,  "  I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  water  unto  repentance :  but  he  that  cometh 
after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire  :  whose  fan  is  in  his  hand  and  he  will 
thoroughly  purge  his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat  into  the 
garner  ;  but  he  will  burn  up  the  chaff*  with  unquenchable 
fire."  Mat.  iii.  11,  12.  See  Mark  i.  2.  *'  And  thou 
child  shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest ;  for  thou 
shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare  his  way.'' 
Luke  i.  76.  Chap.  vii.  27.  When  Malachi  called 
Christ  the  Messenger,  or  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  he, 
no  doubt,  meant  the  covenant  made  at  Horeb,  because 
he  uses  the  definite  article,  the  covenant,  showing  that  it 
was  one  well  known  to  the  Jews.  It  is  not  probable 
that  they  could  understand  him  to  mean  any  other  co- 
venant than  the  one  made  at  Horeb,  because  it  was  all 
the  one  that  existed  between  them  and  the  Lord,  and 
they  knew  of  no  other. 

The  person  of  the  supreme  God  has  always  been  in- 
visible to  mortal  men.  The  Lord  said  to  Moses, 
••'  Thou  canst  not  see  my  face  ;  for  there  shall  no  man 
f^ee  me  and  five."  Exod.  xxxiii.  20.  Paul  says  he  is 
•'  The  blessed  and  onlv  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings, 


l42  CHRIST    AN    ANGEL    OR   MESSENGER, 

and  Lord  of  lords  ;  who  only  hath  immortality  dwell- 
ing in  the  light  which  no  man  can  approach  unto  ;  whom 
no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see."  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  16. 
But  we  find  that  Abraham,  Moses,  and  many  others  saw 
a  person  whom  they  called  God.  All  the  way  I  have 
to  keep  these  texts  Irom  contradicting  each  other,  is  to 
suppose  that  those  which  say  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can 
see  God,  allude  to  the  Father,  and  those  which  say  men 
have  seen  him,  refer  to  the  Son.  I  think  John  the 
Baptist  has  explained  it  in  the  following  text ;  "  No 
man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only  begotten  Son, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared 
him.''     Joh.  i.  18. 

Abraham  did  certainly  see  those  three  men  that  called 
at  his  tent  in  the  plain  of  Mamre,  washed  their  feet,  and 
eat  with  him,  on  their  way  to  destroy  Sodom,  yet  one  of 
them  is  called  the  Lord,  and  Abraham  called  him  God. 
He  promised  Abraham  that  Sarah  should  bear  a  son, 
and  told  him  that  he  was  going  down  to  destroy  Sodom  ; 
but  when  talking  on  that  subject,  he  speaks  as  a  Being 
limited  in  knowledge,  hence  he  says,  "  Because  the  cry 
of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is  great,  and  because  their  sin 
is  very  grievous  ;  I  will  go  down  now,  and  see  whether 
they  have  done  altogether  according  to  the  cry  of  it, 
which  is  come  unto  me,  find  if  not,  I  will  know."  Gen. 
xviii.  20,  21.  I  can  hardly  ascribe  this  language  to  the 
supreme  Deity,  because  it  is  not  likely  that  he  needed 
to  seek  farther  information  respecting  the  wickedness 
of  those  cities.  "V^'hen  Ha^er  fled  from  her  mistress, 
^'  the  angel  of  the  Lord  found  her  by  a  fountain  of  water. 
— And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  her,  I  will  multi- 
ply thy  seed  exceedingly.  And  she  called  the  name  of 
the  Lord  that  spake  unto  her,  thou  God  seest  me.'"  Gen, 
xvi.  7.  10.  13.  Here  the  Angel  whom  the  text  calls  the 
Lord,  and  whom  Hager  calls  God,  promised  to  multiply 
her  seed,  viz  :  Ishmael,  exceedingly.  And  in  Gen. 
xvii.  20.  God  said  to  Abraham,  "  And  as  for  Ishmael, 
I  have  heard  thee  ;  behold  I  nave  blessed  him  ;  and  will 
make  him  fruitful,  and  will  multiply  him  exceedingly.'' 
Hence  it  appears  that  the  Angel  whom  Hagar  called 
God,  is  the  same  God  that  spoke  to  Abraham. 


CHRIST    AN   ANGEL   OR   MESSENGER,  143 

1  have  three  reasons  for  thinking  that  this  person  was 
Christ,  and  not  the  supreme  God.  1.  Because  the 
supreme  God  is  not  hmited  in  knowledge,  as  this  per- 
son seems  to  have  been. 

2.  Because  no  man  hath  at  any  time  seen  the  Fa- 
ther, who  is  the  supreme  God. 

3.  It  appears  to  me  improper  to  call  the  supreme 
God,  the  angel,  or  messenger  of  God. 

When  Moses  led  the  fiock  of  Jethro  to  the  mountain 
of  God,  "  The  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in 
a  flame  of  fire,  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush."  "  And 
when  the  Lord  saw  that  he  turned  aside  to  see,  God 
called  unto  him  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush."  "  More- 
over he  said  I  am  the  God  of  thy  Father,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob." — - 
"  Come  now,  therefore,  and  I  will  send  thee  unto  Pha- 
raoh, that  thou  mayest  bring  forth  my  people,  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  out  of  Egypt."  Exod.  iii.  2,  4,  6,  10. — - 
For  obeying  this  person,  that  appeared  to  him  in  the 
bush,  Moses  lost  his  inheritance  in  the  house  of  Pha^ 
roah,  and  suffered  reproach.  But  Paul  intimates  that 
Moses  suffered  the  reproach  of  Christ.  He  says, 
*'  Moses,  v.'hen  he  was  come  to  years,  refused  to  be 
called  the  son  of  Pharoah's  daughter  ;  Choosing  rather 
to  suffer  affliction  v»'ith  the  people  of  God,  than  to  en- 
joy the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season;  esteeming  the 
reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  in 
Egypt."  Heb.  xi.  24,  25,  26.  Moses  did  not  suffer 
reproach  for  believing  that  Christ  would  be  born  into 
the  world,  but  for  believing  and  obeying  that  person, 
who  appeared  to  him  in  the  bush. 

God  said  to  Moses,  "  Behold  I  send  an  angel  before 
thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to  bring  thee  into  the 
place  which  I  have  prepared  ;  beware  of  him,  and  obey 
liis  voice,  provoke  him  not ;  for  he  will  not  pardon  your 
transgressions,  for  my  name  is  in  him.  But  if  thou 
shalt  indeed  obey  his  voice,  and  do  all  that  I  speak, 
then  I  will  be  an  enemy  unto  thine  enemies."  Exod. 
xxiii.  20,  21,  22.  This  angel  or  messenger,  who  took 
the  Jews  into  Canaan,  is  frequently  called  the  Lord, 
i}w}  God;  and  it  is  said  of  him  that  he  spake  unto  Mo.- 


;44  CHRIST    AN"    ANGEL    OR   MESSENGER. 

ses,  face  to  face,  as  a  man  speaketh  with  liis  friend.— 
Exod.  xxxiii.  11.    Deut.  xxxiv.  10. 

The  Lord  said  to  Aaron  and  3Iiriam  :  "  If  there  be 
a  prophet  among  you,  1,  the  Lord,  will  make  myself 
known  unto  him  in  a  vision,  and  will  speak  unto  him  in 
a  dream.  My  servant,  Moses,  is  not  so,  who  is  faithful 
in  all  my  house.  With  him  will  I  speak,  mouth  to 
mouth,  even  apparently,  and  not  in  dark  speeches  ;  and 
the  similitude  of  the  Lord  shall  he  behold."  jVura.  xii.  6, 
7,  8.  This  person  cannot  be  the  same  that  refused  to 
let  Moses  see  his  face,  and  told  him  that  no  man  could 
see  it  and  live,  yet  he  was  the  angel  who  was  called 
God,  and  whom  God  had  sent  to  conduct  the  Jews 
through  the  wilderness  into  Canaan  :  and  is  probably 
the  angel  of  God's  presence,  of  whom  Isaiah  speaks 
in  the  9th  verse  of  his  63d  chapter  :  "In  all  their  af- 
flictions he  was  afflicted,  and  the  angel  of  his  presence 
saved  them ;  in  his  love  and  in  his  pity  he  redeemed  them ; 
and  he  bare  them,  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old. 
But  they  rebelled  and  vexed  his  Holy  Spiiit :  therefore 
he  was  turned  to  be  their  enemy,  and  he  fought  against 
them."  Paul  intimates  that  this  very  person  that  sup- 
ported them  in  the  wilderness,  and  then  destroyed 
them  with  serpents,  for  their  rebelhon,  was  Christ. — 
Hence  he  says :  "  And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual 
drink  ;  for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  fol- 
lowed them  :  and  that  Rock  was  Christ."  1  Cor.  x.  4. 
verse  9.  "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ  as  some  of 
them  also  tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents." 

That  the  Lord  who  made  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, and  brought  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt,  is  called  an 
angel,  appears  from  the  following  passage  :  *'  And  an 
angel  of  the  Lord  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim,  and 
said,  I  made  you  to  fro  up  out  of  Egypt,  and  have 
brought  you  into  the  land  which  I  sware  unto  your  Fa- 
thers ;  and  I  said  I  will  never  break  my  covenant  with 
you,  and  ye  shall  make  no  league  with  the  inhabitants 
of  this  land:  ye  shall  throw  down  their  alters  :  but  ye 
have  not  obeyed  my  voice  ;  why  have  ye  done  this  ?— 
Wherefore  I  also  said  I  will  not  drive  them  from  before 
vou."  Judg.  ii.  1,  2,  3.  When  Jacob  was  blessing 
Joseph  and  his  sons,  he  said  :  "  The  God  who  fed  me 


CHRIST    AN    ANGEL,    OR   MESSENGER.  145 

uli  my  life  long  unto  this  day  ;  the  angel  who  redeemed 
me  from  all  evil  bless  the  lads."  Gen.  xlviii.  15,  16, 
Here  Jacob  calls  his  redeemer  and  supporter  an  angel, 
and  then  prays  to  that  angel  to  bless  his  grand-sons. 

The  following  passages  affirm  that  no  one  has  ever 
counselled  or  instructed  the  Lord  :  "  TVTio  hath  direct- 
ed the  spirit  of  the  Lord,  or,  being  his  counsellor,  hath 
taught  him  ?  With  whom  took  he  counsel,  and  ivho 
instructed  him,  and  taught  him  in  the  path  of  judge- 
ment, and  taught  him  knowledge,  and  showed  to  him 
the  way  of  understanding  ?"  Isa.  xl.  13,  14.  Paul 
says:  "  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord? 
or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  T'  Rom.  xi.  34.  The 
following  passage  shows  that  the  Lord  whom  Isaiah 
saw,  asked  counsel,  and  was  advised.  "  Also  I  heard 
the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  whom  shall  I  send,  and 
Avho  will  go  for  us  ?  Then  said  I,  here  am  I ;  send  me. 
And  he  said,  go  and  tell  this  people,  hear  ye  indeed,  but 
understand  not."     Isa.  vi.  8 — 9. 

Micaiah  said  :  "  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  upon  his 
throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  on  his  right 
hand  and  on  his  left.  And  the  Lord  said,  who  shall 
entice  Ahab,  kingo^'Israel,  that  he  may  go  up  and  fall 
at  Ramoth-gilcad  ?  And  one  spake  saying  after  this 
manner,  and  another  saying  alitor  that  manner."  Then 
there  came  out  a  spirit  and  stood  before  the  Lord,  and 
said,  I  will  entice  him.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  him, 
Wherewith ?  And  he  said,  I  v>iil  go  out  and  be  a  ly- 
ing spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  the 
Lord  said,  thou  shalt  entice  him,  and  thou  shalt  also 
•prevail  :  go  out,  and  do  even  so."  2  Chro.  xviii.  18, 
19,  20. 

According  to  this  scripture,  the  Lord  held  a  counsel, 
asked  advice,  heard  different  opinions,  and  after  enquir- 
ing into  the  means  by  which  one  of  the  schemes  was  to 
be  effected,  agreed  to  the  proposal. 

Now  if  those  texts  which  say  that  the  Lord  God 
never  has  been  seen,  never  has  taken  counsel,  nor  re- 
ceived advice  of  any  one,  nor  never  did  change,  nor 
repent,  allude  to  God  the  Father ;  and  those  passa- 
ges, which  say  the  Lord  has  been  seen,  has  asked 
cx)unsel,  and  taken  advice,  and  has  repented,  allude  to 
13 


146  CHRIST    AN    ANGEL,    OR  MESSENGEKr 

the  Lord  Jesus,  who  is  a  created  being,  that  can,  oditf^ 
own  self,  do  nothing,  and  changeable,  and  capable  of 
repentance,  the  whole  difficulty  is  cleared  up.  This 
is  my  opinion,  and  I  think  it  will  be  hard  to  prove  that 
it  is  not  true. 

"  And  Jacob  was  left  alone  ;  and  there  wrestled  a 
man  with  him  until  the  breaking  of  the  day  :  And  when 
he  saw  that  he  prevailed  not  against  him,  he  touched 
the  hollow  of  his  thigh ;  and  the  hollow  of  Jacob's 
thigh  was  out  of  joint  as  he  wrestled  with  him.  And 
he  said,  let  me  go,  lor  the  day  breaketh.  And  he  said, 
{  will  not  let  thee  go  except  thou  bless  me.  And  he 
said  unto  him,  what  is  thy  name,  and  he  said  Jacob. — ■ 
And  he  said  thy  name  shall  be  called  no  more  Jacob, 
but  Israel :  for  as  a  Prince,  hast  thou  power  with  God, 
and  with  men,  and  hast  prevailed.  And  Jacob  asked 
Jiim,  and  said  tell  me,  I  pray  thee,  thy  name.  And  he 
said,  wherefore  is  it  that  thou  dost  ask  after  my  name  l 
And  he  blessed  him  there.  And  Jacob  called  the  name 
of  the  place  Peniel:  for  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face, 
and  my  life  is  preserved.*'  Gen.  xxxii.  24 — 30.  This 
person,  with  whom  Jacob  wrestled,  is  called  a  man,  and 
Jacob  calls  him  God  :  but  it  is  no  how  probable  that  he 
was  the  supreme  Being,  because  they  are  represented 
as  wrestling  in  personal  contact  with  each  other,  Jacob 
having  hold  of  him,  and  he  saying  let  me  go  ;  and  when 
he  saw  that  he  prevailed  not  against  Jacob,  he  touched 
the  hollow  of  his  thigh,  and  put  it  out  of  joint,  and  af- 
ter all  Jacob  would  not  let  him  go  till  he  blessed  him  ; 
and  besides  it  would,  perhaps,  be  improper  to  call  the 
infinite  God  a  man,  nor  is  it  likely  that  Jacob  could 
have  opposed  his  personal  strength  to  that  of  the  su- 
preme Being  with  so  much  success.  I  believe  the  su- 
preme God  could  throw  Jacob  down  faster  than  ten 
men  could  pick  him  up  ;  and  of  course  could  have  had 
no  difficulty  in  breaking  loose  from  him^  However,  it 
is  certain  that  Jacob  called  this  person  God,  prayed  to 
him  for  a  blessing,  and  received  one  from  him. 

If  this  wrestling  was  not  literal,  but  only  a  wrestling 
by  prayer,  then  this  man  that  Jacob  called  God  must 
have  prayed  to  him,  because,  Moses  says,  '*  Jacob  was 
feft  alone  ;  and  there  xcrestled  a  man  with  him  until  tht 


CHRIST    AN    ANGEL,    OR    MESSENGER,  147 

^'leaking  of  the  da}'."  In  metaphorical  language  it  will 
do  to  say,  that  Jacob  v/reytled  with  God  by  prayer  ;  biU 
it  will  not  do  to  say  that  God  wrestled  with  Jacob  by 
prayer.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Jacob  prayed 
on  this  occasion  to  that  personage  with  whom  he  wres- 
tled, but  still  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  they  wrestled 
literally. 

That  the  Lord  of  Hosts  did  so'.uetmies  appear  to  the 
ancients  under  the  character  of  an  angel,  appears  from 
the  following  scripture  :  <'He  took  his  brother  by  the 
heel  in  the  womb,  and  by  his  strength  had  power  with 
God  :  yea,  he  had  power  over  tlis  angel,  and  prevailed  : 
he  wept  and  made  supplication  unto  him  :  he  found  him 
in  Bethel,  and  there  he  spake  with  us  :  even  the  Lord 
frod  of  Hosts  ;  the  Lord  is  his  memorial."  Hos.  xii. 
3,4,5. 

Moses  informs  us,  that  God  delivered  them  from 
Egypt  by  the  instrumentality  of  an  angel ;  he  says  : 
**When  we  cried  unto  the  Lord,  he  heard  our  voice,  and 
•sent  an  angel,  and  hath  brought  us  forth  out  of  Egypt." 
Num.  XX.  16.  Paul  says,  the  law  v/as  ordained  by 
angels  in  the  hand  of  a  Mediator.  Gal.  in.  19.  Mo- 
ses was  the  Mediator  of  the  first  covenant,  and  that 
person,  who  wTote  the  law  with  his  own  .finger  on  the 
tables  of  stone,  and  gave  it  to  I\Jhoses,  was  the  principal 
angel,  [that  is]  messenger,  that  ordained,  or  appointed 
the  covenant  with  the  Jews.  Saint  Stephen  speaks  of 
the  angel  that  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  bush,  as  a  per- 
son distinct  from  God  ;  he  says  :  "  This  Moses,  whom 
they  refused,  saying,  who  made  thee  a  ruler  and  a 
judge?  the  same  did  God  send  to  be  a  ruler  and  a  de- 
liver by  the  hands  of  the  angel,  which  appeared  to  him 
in  the  bush."  Act.  vii.  35.  In  verse  38,  he  says, 
"  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness 
with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the  Mount  Sina, 
and  with  our  Fathers  :  who  received  the  lively  oracles 
to  give  unto  us."  And  in  the  53d  verse  he  tells  the 
Jews  that  they  had  received  the  law  by  the  disposition 
of  angels,  and  had  not  kept  it.  From  the  above  pas- 
sages it  appears  that  the  angel  who  appeared  to  Moses 
in  the  bush,  and  with  whom  he  spake  in  the  mount,  and 
from  whom  he  received  the  law,  was  not  the  supreme 


148  CHRIST    AN    ANGEL,    OR   MESSENGER. 

Being,  but  an  angel  sent  by  God  to  establish  the  cove- 
nant with  the  Jews.  And  in  the  third  chapter  of  Ma- 
lachi  we  are  informed  that  the  angel,  or  messenger  ot 
that  covenant,  is  the  Lord  whose  forerunner  was  John 
the  Baptist.  And  in  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew  we 
are  explicitly  told  that  this  messenger  of  the  covenant 
is  Jesus  Christ. 

Again  the  above  evidence  proves,  that  their  spiritual 
guide,  who  supported  them,  and  against  whom  they  re- 
belled, was  some  times  called  God,  at  other  times  call- 
ed an  angel,  and  sometimes  called  a  man.  And  Samt 
Paul  tells  us,  that  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  tha^ 
followed  them,  and  that  Rock  was  Christ.  And  that 
when  they  rebelled  against  that  person,  they  tempted 
Christ.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  supreme  God  fre- 
quently spoke  to  the  patriarchs,  and  prophets,  but  I 
suppose  they  only  heard  his  voice,  but  did  not  see  his 
person.  The  one  that  said  to  Moses;  ^'A  prophet 
shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you,"  &c.  And 
the  one  that  said,  "  No  man  can  see  my  face  and  live,'* 
was  no  doubt  God  the  Father.  But  that  Lord  who 
counselled  with,  and  was  advised  by  creatures,  who  was 
capable  of  repentance,  was  called  a  man,  and  an  angel, 
whose  person  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  frequentl\ 
saw,  and  who  literally  wrestled  with  Jacob,  was  mos^. 
probably  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


MICHAEL,  THE  ARCHANGEL.         149 


CHAPTER  X. 

A    FEW    REASONS    FOR    THINKING    THAT    MICHAEL,     THE     ARCHAK" 
GEL,   IS    JESUS    CHRIST. 

The  word  JMichael  signifies  that  Mhich  is  Ulie,  or  m 
God.  The  word  ^-irchangel  is  composed  of  two  Greek 
words,  viz.,  arche,  ahead  ;  and  angelos,  a  messenger. 
The  title  Michael,  the  Archangel,  hterally  signifies  the 
head  messenger  thai  is  like  God.  This  must  be  Jesus 
Christ,  because  we  all  acknowledge  that  he  is  the  im- 
age of  God,  and  the  head  messenger  that  was  ever  sent 
into  our  world. 

I  have  often  heard  preachers  speaking  of  Archangels 
in  the  plural,  but  in  scripture  the  vv'ord  is  always  men- 
tioned in  the -singular  with  the  definite  article  the  before 
it,  by  which  one  particular  personage  is  denoted.  In 
fact  there  can  be  but  one  Archangel,  that  is,  one  head 
messenger,  and  who  dare  to  say  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not 
the  head  messenger  ? 

If  Christ  is  a  messenger,  he  is  an  angel.  If  he  is  the 
head  messenger,  he  is  the  Archangel.  If  he  is  like 
God,  he  is  Michael  ;  therefore  he  must  be  Michael,  the 
Archangel.  I  think  every  candid  person  that  knows 
the  meaning  of  these  words  will  agree  with  me  on  this 
point. 

The  new  testament  informs  us,  that  Jesus  Christ 
will  preside  at  the  judgement  of  the  last  day.  Thus 
we  read :  "  Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the 
which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness,  by  that 
man  whom  he  hath  ordained  ;  whereof  he  hath  given 
assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead."  Act.  xvii.  31.  "  The  Father  judgeth  no 
man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgement  unto  the  Son.'' 
Joh.  V.  22.  See  also  Mat.  xxv.  31—34.  But  the  fol- 
lowing passage  shows  that  Michael  will  preside  in  the 
day  of  Judgement.  "  And  at  that  time  shall  Michael 
.stand  up  the  great  Prince  which  standeth  for  the  chil- 
13* 


150         MICHAEL-,  THE  ARCHANGEL. 

dren  of  thy  people  :  and  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble, 
such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation  even  to 
that  same  time  :  and  at  that  time  thy  people  shall  be  de- 
livered, every  one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the 
book.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 
earth  shall  awake  ;  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some 
to  shame,  and  everlasting  contempt."  Dan.  xii.  1,  2. 
Some  people  have  argued  that  this  text  does  not  refer 
to  the  day  of  judgement,  because  it  says  :  "  Many  of 
them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake." — 
This  text  might  be  more  literally  translated.  "  The 
multitudes  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  av:ahe."' 
But  as  it  stands,  it  sufficiently  proves  that  Michael  will 
stand  up  to  deliver  all  God's  people,  who  are  written  in 
the  book,  at  the  time  when  those  who  sleep  in  the  dust 
of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting' life,  and 
some  to  shame,  and  everlasting  contempt.  The  angel 
Gabriel  said  to  Daniel :  "I  will  show  thee  that  which 
is  noted  in  the  scriptures  of  truth  :  and  there  is  nonf 
that  holdeth  with  me  in  these  things  but  Michael,  your 
Prince."  Dan.  x.  21.  In  the  thirteenth  verse  of  this 
chapter  Gabriel  says  ;  "  The  prince  of  the  kingdom  of 
Persia  withstood  me  one  and  twenty  days  :  but  lo,  Mi- 
chael, one  [Heb.  ahed,  the  first]  of  the  chief  Princes, 
came  to  help  me."  The  word  which  is  here  rendered 
one^  is  the  same  Hebrew  word  which  is  translated  first 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  where  he  says  the  eve- 
ning and  the  morning  were  the  first  day. 

Some  people  contend  that  Michael  w^as  a  temporal 
Prince,  viz.,  Cyrus,  but  I  think  they  are  mistaken,  be- 
cause Michael  was  not  his  proper  name,  and  I  do  not 
think  he  was  enough  like  God  to  deserve  that  name  as 
an  honorary  title ;  besides  it  appears  that  this  3Iichael 
w^as  an  associate  of  the  angel  Gabriel ;  and  there  is  no 
probability  that  Cyrus  will  stand  up  to  deliver  God's 
people,  when  the  rnuliitndes,  or  even  many  of  them 
that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  hfe,  and  some  to  everlasting  shame  and  con- 
tempt. 

"VVe  are  informed  in  Deut.  xxxiv.  5.  6,  that  "  3Ioses, 
the  servant  of  the  Lord,  died  there  in  the  land  of  Moab,. 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord.     Aud  he  buried  birri 


MICHAEL,  THE  ARCHANGEL.  151 

in  a  valley  in  the  land  of  Moab,  over  against  Beth-peor, 
but  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day.'- 
Jude  says,  "  Michael  the  archangel,  when  contending 
with  the  devil,  he  disputed  about  the  body  of  Moses, 
durst  not  bring  against  him  a  raihng  accusation,  but 
said,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee."  Jude  ix.  Now,  if  the 
Lord  buried  the  body  of  Moses,  and  if  Michael  the  Arch- 
angel took  care  of  the  body  of  Moses,  then  the  titles 
Lord,  and  JMicliael  the  archangel  are  only  different  titles, 
or  names  given  to  the  same  person.  In  this  dispute, 
Michael  said  to  the  Devil,  "  The  Lord  rebuke  thee." 
Which  are  the  same  words  the  Lord  used  to  rebuke 
him  in  the  third  chapter  of  Zechariah,  from  the  first  to 
the  fourth  verse.  "  And  he  shov/ed  me  Joshua  the  high 
priest,  standing  before  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Satan 
standing  at  his  right  hand  to  resist  him.  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  Satan,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee,  0  Satan,  even 
the  Lord  that  hath  chosen  Jerusalem,  rebuke  thee  :  is 
not  this  a  brand  plucked  out  of  the  fire  ?  Now  Joshua 
was  clothed  with  filthy  garments,  and  stood  before  the 
angel.  And  he  answered  and  spake  unto  those  that 
stood  before  him,  saying,  take  away  the  filthy  garment?; 
from  him.  And  unto  him  he  said,  behold  I  have  caused 
thine  iniquity  to  pass  from  thee."  Here  the  very  Lord 
that  cleansed  Joshua  from  miquity,  is  called  an  Angel. 

If  this  Lord-angel  is  not  the  Lord  Jesus,  who  can  he 
be? 

That  Jesus  Christ  commands  the  armies  of  heaven, 
appears  from  the  following  scripture  :  "  And  he  was 
clothed  in  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood :  and  his  name  is 
called,  the  ^Vord  of  God.  And  the  armies  which  were 
in  heaven  followed  him  upon  white  horses,  clothed  in  fine 
linen,  white  and  clean.  *****  And  he  hath  on  his 
vesture  and  on  his  thigh  a  name  written,  KING  OF 
KINGS  AND  LORD  OF  LORDS."  Rev.  xix.  13, 
14. 16.  But  it  appears  from  Rev.  xii.  7,  that  Michael  com- 
mands the  armies  of  heaven.  "And  there  was  war  in  hea- 
ven :  Michael  and  his  angels  fought  against  the  dragon  ; 
and  the  dragon  fought  and  his  angels."     In  the  ninth 

CO  O 

verse  of  this  chapter  we  are  informed  that  the  dragon  is 
the  Devil,  and  Satan,  and  that  Michael  and  his  angels 
cast  him,  and  bis  angels  out  of  heaven  :  and  in  the  tenth 


152  MICHAEL,  THE  ARCHANGEL. 

verse  this  victory  is  ascribed  to  Christ ;  hence  the  ex- 
clamation, "  Now  is  come  salvation  and  strength,  and 
the  kingdom  of  our  God,  and  the  power  of  his  Christ : 
for  the  accuser  of  our  brethren  is  cast  down."  To  me 
this  evidence  proves  beyond  reasonable  dispute,  that 
Michael  is  one  of  the  names  of  Christ ;  because  if  the 
Church  is  the  seat  of  this  war,  and  if  Christ  is  the  Cap- 
tain of  our  salvation,  and  the  leader  of  his  people,  he 
must  be  the  person  who  is  here  mentioned  under  the 
the  name  of  ^lichael. 

Paul  says,  "  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from 
heaven  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel, 
and  with  the  trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ 
shall  rise  first."  1  Thes.  iv.  16.  From  this  text  it  ap- 
pears that  when  the  Lord  shall  descend  with  a  shout, 
his  voice  will  be  that  of  the  Archangel,  or  head  Mes- 
senger ;  therefore  the  Lord  must  be  that  head  Mes- 
senger. 

This  text  says  the  dead  shall  rise  at  the  voice  of  the 
Archangel ;  and  Christ  affirms  that  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  by  his  voice.  He  says,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  the  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the 
dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  they 
that  hear  shall  live."  "  Marvel  not  at  this  :  for  the  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  f^rth  ;  they  that  have 
done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that 
have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation." 
Job.  V.  25.  28,  29. 

I  am  not  alone  in  this  opinion ;  most  of  the  principal 
writers  of  the  Trinitarian  school  have  advocated  the 
same  doctrine.  Brown's  dictionary  of  the  Bible  on  the 
words  Michael,  and  Anord  says,  that  both  these  words 
do  sometimes  refer  to  Christ ;  and  also  affirms  that 
Christ  is  the  Archangel.  Wood's  Spiritual  Dictionary 
teaches  nearly,  if  not  exactly,  the  same  on  this  subject 
that  Brown's  does.  The  former  was  a  Calvinist,  the 
latter  a  Methodist.  Buck,  in  his  Theological  Diction- 
ary, under  the  article  Angel,  asserts  that  Christ  is  in 
scripture  frequently  called  an  Angel.  Butterworth, 
Cruden,  and  Taylor  in  their  concordances,  assert  that 
Michael  and  Angel  are  both  names  of  Christ.    Doctor 


MICHAEL,    THE    ARCHANGEL.  153 

Coke,  a  Methodist  bishop,  in  his  notes  on  the  Bible, 
acknowledges  that  Christ  is  sometimes  called  an  AngeL 
See  his  notes  on  that  passage  where  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord  spake  to  the  people  at  Bochim.  TVinches- 
ter  has  taught  the  same  doctrme  in  the  152  page  of 
the  first  volume  of  his  lectures  on  the  prophecies. 
Whitefield,  in  his  sermon  on  the  bush  that  burnt  and 
was  not  consumed,  says  that  the  Angel  that  appeared  to 
Moses  in  the  bush  was  Christ.  Pool,  in  his  Annota- 
tions, explains  those  passages  where  the  Lord  appeared 
to  the  Patriarchs  under  the  character  of  an  Angel,  as 
referring  to  Jesus  Christ.  Bunyan  makes  his  pilgrim 
ascribe  his  deliverance  from  Apollyon  to  Michael.  He 
says,  "  Blessed  Michael  helped  me."  Pilgrim's  Pro- 
gress, Cincinnatti  edition,  page  54.  Guyse  in  his  Pa- 
raphrase on  the  New-Testament,  on  Rev.  xii.  7.  ac- 
knowledges that  many  good  expositors  think  that  Christ 
is  signified  by  Michael ;  and  also  gives  it  as  his  opinion. 

Doctor  Watts  in  his  glories  of  Christ,  page  200,  201, 
202,  218,  223,  and  224,  teaches  the  same  doctrine. 
Watts,  Dodridge  and  some  others  have  called  this 
Angel  of  the  covenant,  or  Angel  of  God's  presence, 
Christ's  human  soul,  whom  they  think  was  the  first  Be- 
ing that  God  ever  created.  I  agree  with  them  that 
Christ  is  the  first  Being  that  God  created,  but  I  cannot 
see  the  propriety  of  caUing  the  pre-existent  Christ  a 
human  soul,  seeing  he  did  not  descend  from  human's, 
but  existed  before  the  human  family  was  created. 

Thomas  Scott,  in  his  notes  on  the  Bible,  says  the 
Angel  that  appeared  to  Hager  when  she  fled  from  her 
mistress,  one  of  the  three  Angels  that  appeared  to  Abra- 
ham in  the  plains  of  Mamre,  the  Angel  that  appeared 
to  Moses  in  the  bush,  and  the  Angel  that  spoke  to  the 
Jews  at  Bochim,  was  Jesus  Christ :  and  also  asserts 
that  Michael  the  Archangel  is  Jesus  Christ.  See  Scott's 
Bible  on  Gen.  xvi.  9,  10.  Chap,  xviii.  throughout. 
Exod.  iii.  2—7.  Judg.  ii.  1—5.  Dan.  x.  13.  21,  Chap, 
xii.  1.    Rev.  xii.  7. 

I  could  mention  many  other  writers  who  have  advo- 
cated this  doctrine,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
it  has  long  been  believed  among  the  most  eminent  Tri= 
nitarians,     I  forbear  to  quote  the  w^ords  of  all  these  au- 


154  IMICHAEL,  THE  ARCHANGEL. 

thors  on  the  subject,  because  it  would  swell  this  woij- 
unnecessarily ;  and  as  those  books  are  very  common, 
the  reader  can  examine  them  for  himself. 

Little  did  many  of  these  great  and  good  men  thinK 
that  when  they  were  teaching  that  Christ  is  an  Angel, 
that  he  is  the  Angel  of  che  covenant,  the  Angel  of  God's 
presence,  and  Michael  the  Archangel,  they  were  thereby 
undermining  Trinitarianism  ;  yet  they  actually  were, 
because,  if  he  was  the  Angel  of  God,  and  as  Moses 
says,  the  Angel  that  God  sent  to  bring  the  Jews  out  of 
Egypt,  he  cannot  be  God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
word. 

As  the  text  which  says  Melchisedec  ivas  the  Priest  of 
the  most  high  God,  proves  that  Melchisedec  was  not 
the  most  high  God,  so  the  passages  which  say  Christ  is 
the  Angel  of  God,  prove  that  he  cannot  be  that  God, 
whose  Angel  or  Messenger  he  is.  It  will  not  do  to  say 
that  Christ  in  his  pre-existent  state,  \n  as  only  distinct 
from,  and  inferior  to  God  in  his  humanity,  while  in  his 
divinity  he  was  equal  with  him,  because  his  humanity 
was  not  then  in  existence.  Thi>  doctrine  is  as  fatal  to 
Socinianism,  as  it  is  to  Trinjtiuianism,  because,  if 
Christ  is  the  Angel  of  the  covenant,  who  spoke  with 
Moses  in  the  Mount,  and  buried  him  when  he  died,  he 
must  have  existed  before  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary. 

I  have  heard  but  two  texts  of  scripture  brought  to  dis- 
prove this  doctrine.  One  is,  for  verily  he  took  not  on 
him  the  nature  of  Angels  ;  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed 
of  Abraham.."  Heb.  ii.  16.  As  the  word  nature  in 
this  text  is  wanting  in  the  Greek,  it  proves  nothing  about 
the  nature  of  Christ.  In  fact  the  word  Angel  simply 
signifies  a  messenger,  and  never  denotes  nature, 
but  is  always  significant  of  office.  Every  messenger 
that  ever  existed  in  heaven,  earth,  or  hell,  was  an  Angel. 
Christ  is  called  a  Messenger  in  Isa.  xlii.  19.  "Who 
is  blind  but  my  servant  ?  or  deaf,  as  my  Messenger 
that  I  sent?"  also,  Mai.  iii.  1,  2. 

The  other  text  that  I  have  heard  urged  to  prove  that 
Christ  never  was  an  Angel,  is  Heb.  i.  5.  "  For  unto 
which  of  the  Angels  said  he  at  any  time,  thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  besfotten  thee."     Although  this 


MICHAEL,  THE  ARCHANGEL.  155 

lext  abundantly  proves  that  Christ  is  exalted  above  all 
other  Messengers,  it  by  no  means  proves  that  he  never 
was  a  Messenger  himself.  If  I  should  say  of  General 
Washington  that  he  was  made  superior  to  all  the  officers 
of  the  Revolutionary  army  :  for  to  which  of  the  officers 
said  Congress  at  any  time,  thou  shalt  be  commander-in- 
chief,  and  again  when  they  brought  him  into  the  army, 
they  said,  let  all  the  officers  obey  him,  and  of  the  officers 
it  is  said  that  the  government  gave  them  commissions 
and  appointed  them  wages,  but  to  Washington  it  said, 
thou  hast  loved  thy  country,  and  hated  treacher}',  there- 
fore the  government,  even  thy  government,  hath  exalted 
thee  to  honor  and  office,  above  thy  fellows  ;  such  con- 
versation would  go  just  about  as  far  to  prove  that  I 
thought  Washington  never  was  an  officer  in  the  army  of 
the  Revolution,  as  the  first  chapter  of  Hebrews  goes  to 
prove  that  Christ  never  was  a  Messenger  of  God.  In 
fact  the  above  text  taken  in  its  connexion  goes  rather 
to  prove,  than  to  disprove,  that  he  is  one  of  God's  An- 
gels, or  Messengers,  because  the  writer,  after  speaking 
of  him  in  connexion  with  the  Angels  several  times, 
finally  asserts  that  he  was  anointed  vvith  the  oil  of  glad- 
ness above  his  fellows,  by  which  he  must  mean  his  fel- 
low messengers,  for  there  are  no  others  mentioned  in 
the  connexion. 

The  drift  of  the  writer  in  the  first  chapter  of  Hebrews, 
was  not  to  show  that  Christ  was  no  Messenger,  but  to 
show  that  he  was  made  greater  than  all  the  Messengers 
of  God  :  therefore,  when  the  above  text  is  brought  to 
prove  that  Christ  never  was  an  Angel,  that  is,  a  3Ies- 
senger  of  God  it  is  pressed  into  a  service  for  which  it 
was  never  designed  bv  the  writer. 


156  GOD,  A  REAL  PERSON, 


CHAPTER  XI. 


IHOUGHTS    OX    THE    PERSONAL,    OR   REAL    EXISTENCE    OF    GOt'- 

As  all  our  knowledge  of  God  must  be  received  by 
revelation,  it  is  important  that  we  should  believe  of  him 
as  he  is  set  forth  in  the  inspired  writings. 

I  think  many  Christians  have  been  led  astray  from  the 
simple  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  relative  to  the  person  of 
God,  our  heavenly  Father.  Many  have  taught,  and 
more  have  believed,  that  his  person  fills  all  immensity. 
That  is,  they  believe  that  the  very  essence  of  his  being 
exists  as  much  in  one  place  as  it  does  in  another,  or  that 
he  personally  exists  in  all  places  at  the  same  time. 
Hence  we  frequently  hear  preachers  assert  that  his  cen- 
tre is  every  where,  and  his  circumference  no  where  ; 
and  that  he  is  as  essentially  here,  and  in  hell,  as  he  is  in 
the  heaven  of  heavens. 

In  my  view  this  very  much  resembles  the  doctrine  of 
the  ancient  heathen,  who  held  that  matter  is  self-ex- 
istent, and  that  God  is  the  soul  of  matter.  Alexander 
Pope,  who  professed  to  be  a  christian  appears  to  have 
literally  believed  this  doctrine.  He  expresses  himself 
tlms  : 

"All  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole, 
Whose  body  nature  is,  and  God  the  soul; 
Spreads  through  all  space,  extends  through  all  extent, 
Spreads  undivided,  operates  unspent. 
Warms  in  the  Sun,  refreshes  in  the  breeze,  &c." 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  God  must  be  the  origin,  and 
container  of  Ctll  the  evil  in  the  universe.  Hell,  the 
Devil,  all  natural  corruption,  and  moral  turpitude  must 
be  incorporated  in  his  person  :  for  all  these  things  are 
contained  in  immensity,  and  if  his  essence  fills  all  im- 
mensity, then  they  must  originate,  and  be  contained  in 
the  essence  of  God.  According  to  this  doctrine  there 
can  be  nothing  in  the  universe  in  opposition  to  God. 


t?OD,    A    REAL    PERSON.  157 

biBCause  every  thing  that  originates,  and  is  contained  in 
God  must  be  agreeable  to  him. 

This  theory  confounds  the  colors  of  good  and  evil, 
removes  the  land-marks  between  vice  and  virtue,  divests 
God  of  his  agency  as  Governor  of  the  universe,  and 
makes  him  to  be  that  very  universe  itself,  governed  by 
the  laws  of  matter.  It  confounds  the  colors  of  good 
and  evil  by  ascribing  to  them  the  same  origin,  and  a 
common  habitation.  It  is  a  scriptural  fact,  that  if  they 
both  proceed  from  the  same  fountain,  they  cannot  be 
contrary  to  each  other  ;  because  a  good  tree  cannot  bear 
evil  fruit,  nor  can  a  fountain  at  the  same  place  send 
forth  bitter  water  and  sv.  eet.  Every  one  must  acknow- 
ledge that  as  soon  as  good  and  evil  are  blended  toge- 
ther, the  distinction  between  vice  and  virtue  is  removed. 

This  doctrine  deprives  God  of  his  agency,  for  if  his 
essence  fills  immensity,  he  cannot  be  an  active  Being, 
because  there  could  be  no  room  for  him  to  act  in,  un- 
less he  could  act  beyond  immensity,  which  is  impossi- 
ble. He  cannot  even  turn  round  unless  there  is  some 
space  outside  of  him,  and  if  there  is,  he  does  not  fill  all 
immensity.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  God  will  move, 
or  turn  infinite  space,  because  space  is  not  Being,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  turned,  nor  moved,  besides  there 
could  be  no  space  to  turn  it  in,  nor  move  it  to.  We  can 
imagine  no  space,  beyond  immensity. 

If  his  essence  fills  all  boundless  space,  he  cannot  act, 
nor  operate,  without  acting  or  operating  on  himself,  be- 
cause, let  him  strike  or  operate  in  whatsoever  part  of 
immensity  he  might,  he  would  strike  or  operate  on 
himself. 

Boundless  space  cannot  move  from  place  to  place. 
Therefore  if  he  fills  all  immensity,  he  cannot  have  the 
power  of  locomotion,  unless  he  contracts  and  dilates  his 
person,  and  if  he  does,  he  is  changeable  in  his  essence. 

Acting  on  himself  would  not  be  governing  the  world, 
unless  the  world  is  himself. 

If  the  world  is  God,  or  a  part  of  God,  he  is  very  frail, 
very  changeable,  and  very  much  under  the  contiol  of 
man. 

The  Bible  represents  God  as  a  real  person.  It  holds 
him  out  as  the  Monarch  of  the  universe,  and  ascribes  to 
14 


159  GOD,    1    REAL    PERSON". 

him  nearly  all  the  members  of  the  human  body.  The 
Lord  said  to  Moses,  "  I  will  put  thee  in  a  cleft  of  the 
rock ;  and  will  cover  thee  with  my  hand  while  I  pass 
by  :  and  I  will  take  away  mine  hand,  and  thou  shalt  see 
my  back  parts  :  but  my  face  shall  not  be  seen."  Exod. 
xxxiii.  22,  23.  If  God's  person  fills  all  boundless 
space,  how  could  he  pass  by  Moses  ?  Or  how  could 
Moses  see  his  back  parts  ?  Did  Moses  stand  outside 
of  infinite  space  ?  If  God's  person  fills  immensity  there 
cannot  be  room  in  space  for  Christ  to  stand  at  his  right 
hand.  ^ 

If  God's  person  fills  immensity,  how  could  he  gather 
all  nations  before  him  ?  They  would  all  be  in  him. 
Christ  says,  "  I  proceeded  and  came  forth  from  God.'* 
Joh.  viii.  42.  He  says,  '*  I  came  forth  from  the  Father, 
and  am  come  into  the  world  :  again  I  leave  the  world, 
and  go  to  the  Father."  Joh.  xvi.  28.  If  God's  person 
is  as  much  in  one  place  as  another,  how  could  Christ 
proceed  forth  and  come  from  him  1  If  the  Father  was 
as  much  in  the  place  where  Christ  then  stood  as  he  was 
in  any  part  of  the  universe,  why  was  it  necessary  for  him 
to  leave  the  world,  in  order  to  go  to  the  Father  ?  If 
God's  person  is  in  every  place  at  the  same  time,  Christ 
eould  not  come  forth  from  him  without  leaving  all  infi- 
nite space,  and  that  he  could  not  do  without  going  out 
of  existence. 

This  text  must  not  be  understood  in  a  moral  sense, 
because  to  go  from  God  in  a  moral  sense,  is  to  become 
wicked,  which  cannot  be  true  of  Jesus  ;  he  never  was 
wicked. 

Paul  says,  "  Whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we 
are  absent  from  the  Lord  :  we  are  confident  I  say,  and 
willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  present 
with  the  Lord.  Wherefore  we  labor  that  whether  pre- 
sent or  absent,  we  may  be  accepted  of  him."  2  Cor.  v. 
6.  8,  9.  If  God's  person  is  every  where  at  once,  how 
can  a  christian  be  absent  from  him  ?  If  Paul  alluded  to 
Christ,  it  effects  not  the  argument,  for  he  is  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  To  be  morally  absent  from  God,  is  to 
be  alienated  from  him  in  the  spirit  of  our  minds,  of  course 
Paul  should  not  be  understood  in  that  sense,  because- 
h§  could  nol  be  in  a  strait  to  know  whether  that^  or  the- 


GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON'.  159 

|>re5eivce  of  God  was  the  better.  Besides,  he  says, 
<*  we  labor  that  whether  present  or  absent  we  may  be 
accepted  of  him."  And  he  could  not  expect  to  be  ac- 
cepted of  God  while  he  was  absent  from,  him  in  a  moral 
point  of  view. 

That  God  is  a  real  person,  appears  from  the  following 
beautiful  passage  in  Daniel :  "  I  beheld  till  the  thrones 
were  cast  down,  and  the  Ancient  of  days  did  sit,  whose 
garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of  his  head  hke 
the  pure  wool ;  his  throne  was  like  the  fiery  flame,  and 
his  wheels  as  burning  fire.  A  fiery  stream  issued  and 
came  forth  from  before  him  :  thousand  thousands  mi- 
nistered unto  him,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand 
^tood  before  him  :  the  judgement  was  set,  and  the  books 
were  opened."  "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  be- 
hold one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they 
brought  him  near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him 
dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people, 
nations,  and  languages  should  serve  him,  his  dominion 
is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away, 
and  his  kingdom  that  which  ^hall  not  be  destroyed." 
Dan.  vii.  9,  10.  13,  14.  If  God's  personal  essence 
iills  all  boundless  space,  this  passage  must  be  false. 
How  could  boundless  space  be  clothed?  or  sit  on  a 
throne  1  or  ride  on  wheels  ?  how  could  a  fiery  stream 
issue  and  come  forth  from  before  boundless  space?  or 
how  could  Jesus  Christ  come  to,  or  be  brought  near 
before  boundless  space?  Surely  tne  clothes,  the  throne, 
the  wheels,  the  fiery  stream,  the  multitude,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  must  all  be  in  space  ;  then  if  God  fills  all  space, 
how  could  they  be  around  him  ?  under  him  ?  come  forth 
from  before  him  ?  stand  before  him  I  or  be  brought  near 
before  him  ? 

Gabriel  explains  the  four  beasts,  the  ten  horns,  and 
the  little  horn  in  this  vision  as  an  allegorical  represen- 
tation of  the  four  great  empires  that  should  rule  the 
world,  and  the  anti-christian  power  that  should  make 
war  aorainst  the  saints.  As  all  these,  and  the  Son  of 
man.  and  the  great  multitude  that  stood  before  the  An- 
cient of  days  have  shape  and  local  habitations,  and  as 
•shape  and  locality  are  as  much  ascribed  to  him  as  they 


160  GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON', 

are  to  theni,  by  what  analogy  are  we  to  conclude  tha* 
he  has  no  shape,  nor  local  habitation  1 

If  God's  person  fills  all  space,  he  can  have  no  shape- 
because  shape  always  implies  superficies,  and  that  which 
is  unbounded,  has  no  surface.  Whatever  is  too  subtile 
to  have  any  shape,  must  be  quality,  and  a  quality,  or 
attribute  has  no  existence  separate  from  the  being  that 
possesses  it,  therefore,  if  God  is  nothing  but  a  quality, 
he  cannot  be  an  agent,  nor  an  intelligent  being  ;  hence 
the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  if  he  has  no  shape,  he 
has  no  real  existence,  because  the  beiftg  that  exists  in- 
no  shape,  exists  not  at  all. 

The  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith  says,  "  God  is 
without  body,  parts,  or  passions."  In  my  view  this  is 
equal  to  Atheism  ;  because  if  we  divest  him  of  tbesCy 
there  is  nothing  left  that  would  constitute  being,  or  that 
would  be  perceptible  to  the  mind. 

Ears,  hands,  and  eyes  are  parts  of  an  intelligent 
ruler,  and  if  God  has  none  of  these,  he  cannot  heary 
handle,  nor  see  us.  If  he  is  without  passions,  he  has  no 
mercy,  love,  nor  anger,  and  therefore  cannot  forgive  uSy 
love  us,  nor  be  angry  with  us,  because  if  he  has  not 
these  passions,  he  cannot  exercise  them.  If  it  were 
possible  for  the  divine  Being  to  exist  without  body, 
parts,  or  passions,  he  would  be  to  us  neither  desirable* 
dreadful,  nor  useful. 

It  is  only  from  the  Bible  that  we  learn  the  existence 
of  God,  and  that  book  ascribes  to  him  nearly  all  the 
members  of  the  human  body,  and  represents  him  to  be 
in  the  shape  of  a  man.  That  various  members  of  the 
human  body  are  ascribed  to  him,  appears  from  the  fol- 
lowing texts.  "  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  the 
righteous,  and  his  ears  are  open  unto  their  cry.  The 
face  of  the  Lord  is  against  them  that  do  evil.  PsaL 
xxxiv.  15,  16.  "He  shall  gather  the  lambs  with  his 
arm,  and  carry  them  in  his  bosom."  Isa.  xl.  11.  "I 
will  turn  my  hand  upon  thee."  Isa.  i.  25.  "  The  Lord 
is  a  man  of  war,  the  Lord  is  his  name."  Exod.  xv.  3. 
"  And  God  said  let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after 
our  likeness."  "  So  God  created  man  in  his  owu 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him."  Gen,  i. 
26,  27. 


GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON.  161 

Some  suppose  that  Being  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  only  means  that  man  was  made  holy ;  but  I  think 
we  should  not  restrict  the  word  to  the  quality,  it  cer- 
tainly extends  to  the  personal  appearance  of  the  man  ; 
because  in  scripture  the  words  image  and  likeness,  are 
most  generally  used  to  represent  the  bodily  appearance. 
Thus  in  the  fourth  commandment  we  read,  "Thou  shalt 
not  m.ake  unto  thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness 
of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the 
earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth." 
Exod.  XX.  4.  Here  the  words  imager  and  likeness  are 
used  to  represent  the  appearance  of  any  thing  in  the 
heavens  above,  or  on  the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the  waters 
under  the  earth.  The  Jews  did  not  understand  ihe 
words  image,  and  likeness  to  mean  moral  perfections, 
Ihey  could  not  think,  that  their  God  forbid  them  to  copy 
the  moral  perfections  of  birds,  beasts,  or  fishes,  but  thev 
well  knev,-,  that  when  they  made  gold  into  the  shape  of 
a  calf,  they  broke  this  commandment.  That  the  image 
of  God,  in  which  man  was  made,  respects  the  shape  of 
his  person,  is  evident  from  his  being  made  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  because  if  he  was  made  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  at  the  same  time  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
that  image  must  consist  in  the  miodification,  or  fashion- 
ing of  that  dust.  That  this  image  of  God  in  which  man 
was  created,  signifies  the  configuration  of  his  person,  is 
still  more  evident  from  this  consideration,  that  he  pos- 
sessed it  before  he  was  endowed  with  any  moral  per- 
fections, or  the  breath  of  life  was  breathed  into  his  nos- 
trils ;  which  apj)ears  from  the  following  text :  "And  the 
Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, — and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ;  and  man 
became  a  hving  soul."  Gen.  ii.  7.  James,  speaking 
cf  the  tongue  says,  "  Therewith  bless  we  God,  even  the 
Father  ;  and  therewith  curse  we  men,  which  are  made 
in  the  similitude  of  God."  Jam.  iii.  9.  The  Apostle 
here  says  not  that  men  icere,  but  that  they  are  made 
after  the  similitude  of  God.  This  most  probably  re- 
spects their  personal  appearance,  because  their  minds, 
in  their  present  fallen  state,  are  not  similar  to  God. 

Paul  intimates  that  a  man  bears  that  resemblance  to 
Godj  which  a  woman  does  to  a  man,  beoce  he  savs. 


162  GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON. 

"  For  a  man  indeed  ought  not  to  cover  his  head,  for  aif 
^luch  as  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God,  but  the 
woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man."  1  Cor.  xi.  7.  As 
Paul  speaks  of  man  in  general,  and  that  in  his  present 
fallen  state,  he  must  mean  that  he  has  the  image  of  God 
in  the  shape  of  his  person,  because  in  a  moral  point  of 
view,  man  is  not  in  that  divine  image.  Besides  he  must 
mean,  that  man  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God  in  the 
same  sense  that  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man.  and 
all  will  acknowledge  that  to  be  her  person. 

There  is  no  truth  in  scripture  more  plainly  declared, 
than  that  Jesus  Christ  in  his  pre-existent  state,  and  iii 
his  states  of  humiliation  and  exaltation,  has  always  been 
in  the  shape  of  a  man.  Paul  says,  he  is  the  brightnes?^ 
of  his  Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  per- 
son [Greek  hujoostaseos,  substance.)  This  text  shows 
beyond  doubt  that  God's  person,  or  substance  is  in  the 
shape  of  a  man.  It  does  not  say,  that  he  was  the  im- 
age of  God's  moral  perfections,  but  it  says  he  was  the 
express  image  of  his  person.  Heb.  i.  3.  Paul  to  the 
CoUossians,  says  of  Christ  that  he  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God.  Col.  i.  15.  God's  moral  perfections 
have  been  revealed,  and  are  visible  to  every  believer^ 
therefore  it  must  be  his  person,  that  is  called  the  invisi- 
ble God,  then  Jesus  Christ  is  the  image  or  shape  of  that 
person. 

Paul  says  :  *'  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was 
also  in  Christ  Jesus  :  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God."  Philip, 
ii.  5,  6.  Form  is  distinct  from  quality,  and  always  re- 
lates to  arrangement  or  shape.  This  shows  that  Christ 
was  in  the  form,  or  shape  of  God  before  he  emptied 
iiimself  of  that  glory,  he  had  with  the  Father  in  his  pre- 
existent  state.  And  we  all  know  that  in  all  his  earl) 
appearances  to  the  patriarchs,  and  prophets,  he  appear- 
ed in  the  shape  of  a  man,  and  was  frequently  called  a 
man.  If  he  was  in  the  form  of  God,  and  that  form  was 
the  shape  of  a  man,  then  God  is  in  the  shape  of  a 
man.  It  is  not  probable  that  by  taking  on  him  the 
torm  of  a  servant,  Christ  materially  changed  the  shape 
of  his  person  ;  the  more  probable  meaning  is,  that  he 
•emptied  himself  of  his  lustre,  and  glory,  and  was  chang-^ 


GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON.  163 

cd  tVom  the  condition  of  a  great  king  to  that  of  a  ser- 
vant. When  Mark  says  of  Christ,  that  he  appeared  in 
another  form  unto  two  of  his  disciples,  he  does  not 
mean  that  the  Saviour  appeared  in  the  shape  of  some 
animal  entirely  different  from  a  man,  but  that  he  was  so 
changed  in  his  external  appearance,  that  they  did  not 
know  him.  If  the  word  form  means  moral  perfections, 
then  it  follows  that  he  emptied  himself  of  God's  moral 
perfections,  and  took  on  himself  the  form,  that  is,  the 
moral  perfections  of  a  servant.  Whether  the  torm  of 
God  that  he  had  before  he  took  the  form  of  a  servant, 
was  the  shape  of  man  or  not,  it  was  the  form  or  shape 
of  God,  therefore  it  remains  a  tact  that  God  has  a 
shape. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


1  will  now  attempt  to  answer  the  principal  objection?- 
that  I  have  heard  against  the  personal,  or  real  existence 
of  God. 

Objection  1.  If  we  worship  God  ascribing  to  him  the 
human  shape,  will  we  not  violate  the  second  commandment 
which  forbids  us  to  make  and  worship  any  graven  im- 
age, or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  ? 

Answer.  It  can  break  no  commandment  of  God  to 
believe  of,  and  worship  him,  as  he  has  revealed  himself 
to  us  in  his  word  :  and  although  we  ascribe  to  God  the 
shape  of  a  man,  still  he  is  not  the  image  of  a  man, 
but  man  is  the  image  of  him,  and  God  is  the  prototype  : 
besides  we  do  not  make  this  image,  it  is  formed  in  om- 
minds  by  the  holy  scripture,  and  believing  the  Bible  is 
not  making  nor  worshiping  graven  images. 

Object.  2.  Christ  speaking  of  his  Father,  says  ; 
''  Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  wiy  time,  nor  seoi 
his  shape,-^     Joh.  v.  37, 


16 i  GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON. 

Ans.  Some  of  the  best  critics  read  this  in  tlie 
shape  of  a  question,  thus  :  "Have  you  not  heard  hi? 
voice,  and  seen  his  shape  ]"  I  think  it  is  probable  that 
this  is  the  true  reading,  because  the  multitude  did 
hear  the  Father's  voice  when  his  Son  was  baptized,  and 
as  they  had  all  seen  Christ,  who  was  the  express  image 
of  his  person,  they  must  have  seen  his  shape.  But  if 
the  common  reading  is  correct,  this  text  shows  as  plainly 
that  God  has  a  shape,  as  that  he  has  a  voice.  If  it  will 
prove  that  he  has  mo  shape,  it  will  prove  that  he  has  no 
voice.  When  Jacob  wanted  his  sons  to  go  into  Egypt, 
and  buy  corn,  Judah  told  him,  if  he  would  not  send 
Benjamin,  they  would  not  go  :  "  For  the  man  said  un- 
to us,  ye  shall  not  see  my  face,  except  your  brother  be 
with  you."  Gen.  xliii.  5.  Would  any  one  take  this  as 
a  proof  that  Joseph  had  no  face  ?  Yet  it  proves  it 
about  as  much  as  the  above  text  proves  that  God  has 
no  shape. 

In  this  text  Christ  has  ascribed  shape  to  the  Father, 
but  if  the  Father  is  shapeless,  then  the  Son  has  misre- 
presented him. 

Object.  3.  God  is  a  spirit,  and  how  shall  we,  consis- 
lently  with  truth,  ascribe  shape  to  a  spirit  ? 

Jias.  All  the  spirits  that  the  scripture  gives  an  ac- 
count of  being  seen,  were  seen  in  the  shape  of  men. — 
The  three  men  that  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  plains 
of  Mamre,  as  recorded  in  the  18th  chapter  of  Genesis, 
were,  no  doubt,  spirits,  one  of  them  is  called  the  Lord, 
he  was  the  God  of  Abraham,  yet  he,  and  the  two  that 
were  with  him  appeared  in  the  shape  of  men.  In  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  Judges  we  have  an  account  of  an 
angel,  that  appeared  to  3Ianoah  and  his  wife,  in  the 
shape  of  a  man,  and  they  called  him  a  man,  but  when 
they  otTered  a  burnt  offering,  and  the  flame  Went  up 
towards  heaven  from  off  the  altar,  he  ascended  up  with 
the  flame  of  the  altar.  In  the  6th  chapter  of  Judges, 
we  have  an  account  of  an  angel  that  appeared  to  Gideon 
in  the  shape  of  a  man,  who  is  also  called  the  Lord. — 
The  angel  Gabriel  is  called  the  rnan  Gabriel.  Dan. 
ix.  21.  The  fourth  person  that  was  seen  walking  with 
th^  three  children  in  the  midst  of  the  fiery  furnace,  wbs. 


GOD,   A    REAL   PERSON.  165 

uo  doubt,  a  spirit,  yet  he  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a 
man.  After  the  rich  man's  body  was  buried,  he-  is  re- 
presented as  a  man  lifting  I'p  his  eyes  in  torment.— 
There  appeared  two  men,  which  were  Moses  and  Elias. 
talking  with  Christ  in  the  Mount.  Moses'  body  had 
not  then  been  raised  from  the  dead,  yet  Moses  was  a 
man.  When  the  disciples  saw  Christ  walking  on  the 
water  they  thought  they  had  seen  a  spirit.  On  another 
occasion  he  said  :  "  Handle  me,  and  see,  for  a  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  Luk. 
xxiv.  39.  It  is  plain  from  these  texts,  that  the  differ- 
ence between  the  people  in  the  spiritual,  and  natural 
world,  is  not  in  shape.  If  the  Saints  in  heaven  exist, 
they  must  exist  in  some  shape,  and  no  doubt  but  that  it 
is  the  human  shape.  We  read  of  men  in  heaven,  on 
earth,  and  under  the  earth.     Rev.  v.  3. 

Object.  4.  Habakkuk  said,  God  had  horns  coming 
out  of  his  hand.  Isaiah  says,  he  has  measured  the  wa- 
ters in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  and  meted  out  heaven  with 
a  span.  Habakkuk.  iii.  4.  Isa.  xl.  12.  If  these  and 
similar  passages  are  to  be  understood  metaphorically, 
■why  not  understand  all  the  passages  that  ascribe  shape 
to  him  in  the  same  way  ? 

Ajis.  1  think  both  these  passages  allude  to  Christ, 
and  if  they  do,  they  cannot  prove  that  he  has  no  shape  ; 
but  whether  they  do  or  not,  he  is  represented  as  a  Vine,  a 
Lamb,  a  Door,  a  Rock,  a  Lion,  &c.  John  said  his  voice 
was  as  the  sound  of  many  waters,  he  had  in  his  right 
hand  seven  stars,  and  out  of  his  mouth  went  a  sharp 
two-edged  sword.  Rev.  i.  15,  16.  But  all  these 
metaphorical  representations  do  not  prove  that  Jesus  is 
not  a  real  person,  possessed  of  shape. 

The  king  of  Babylon  is  called  Lucifer,  son  of  the 
morning.  Isa.  xiv.  12.  Ephraim  is  called  a  heifer. 
Hos.  X.  11.  Wicked  people  are  called  dogs,  and 
swine.  Papal  Rome  is  represented  as  a  beast  with 
seven  heads,  and  ten  horns.  Jacob  said,  "  Judah  is  a 
lion's  whelp  ;  Issachar  is  a  strong  ass  ;  Dan  shall  be  a 
serpent  by  the  way.  Naphtali  is  a  hind  let  loose  :  Jo- 
seph is  a  fruitful  bough."  Gen.  xlix.  9,  14,  17,  21,  22. 
This  metaphorical  descrintion  does  not  nrove  that  those 


166  GOD,    A    REAL   PERSON." 

beings  possessed  no  shape.  The  text  that  says  he 
measured  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  will 
just  go  as  far  to  prove  that  water  has  no  real  existence,  as 
it  will  to  prove  that  God  has  no  hand.  That  the  hands 
and  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  sometimes  aientioned  in  scrip- 
ture to  represent  his  power  and  wisdom,  is  no  proof 
that  he  has  no  hands  nor  eyes  :  because  the  hands  of 
men  are  sometimes  mentioned  to  represent  their  power. 
Thus  :  "  Menahem  gave  Pul  a  thousand  talents  of  sil- 
ver, that  his  hand  might  be  with  him  to  confirm  the 
kingdom  in  his  hand."  2  Kin:-,  xv.  19.  When  the 
wise  woman  intreated  David  to  recal  Absalom,  "  The 
king  said,  is  not  the  hand  of  Joab  with  thee  in  all 
this?"  2  Sam.  xiv.  19.  Thevvoman  acknowledged, 
that  she  acted  under  the  advice  of  Joab.  Now  will 
any  one  suppose  that  because  Pul's  and  Joab's  hands 
in  the  above  texts  relate  to  the  po\ver  of  the  one,  and 
the  advice  of  the  other,  that,  thtM-efore,  thev  had  no 
hands  ?  Eyes  are  ascribed  to  people  sometimes  to  re- 
present their  menial  light,  as  in  Luk.  xi.  34.  "  The 
light  of  the  body  is  the  eye,  &c."  And  Ephes.  i.  18, 
"  The  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened.'" 
In  the  following  text,  arm,  and  ritikt  eye.  ar-  as- 
cribed to  the  idle  shepherd,  to  represent  his  moral 
strength,  and  spiritual  light  :  "  Wo  to  th'^  idol  shep- 
herd that  leaveth  the  flock:  the  sword  shall  be  upon  his 
arm,  and  upon  his  riq;ht  eye  :  his  arm  shall  be  clean 
dried  up,  and  his  right  eye  shall  be  utterly  darkened." 
Zech.  xi.  17.  Ann,  is  so  netimes  ascribed  to  men  to 
represent  their  trust,  or  dependance  ;  hence,  the  proph- 
et says  :  "Cursed  be  the  man,  that  trustelh  in  man, 
and  maketh  flesh  his  arm."  Jer.  xvii.  5.  But  all  this- 
does  not  prove  that  the  persons  here  spoken  of  have  no 
eyes  nor  arms. 

Object.  5.  Does  not  the  scriptures  say,  that  God 
/t//s  heaven,  and  earth,  and  that  he  is  every  ivhere  pre- 
sent, beholding  the  evil  and  the  good  1 

Ans.  When  I  conte^nplate  God  as  infinite  in  all  his 
perfections,  I  can  easily  -onceive  how  he  c  m  sit  m  the 
circle  of  the  earth,  and  with  one  glance  of  his  all- 
seeing  eye  behold  every  being  in  the  universe  ;  but  it 


GOD,    A    REAL    PERSOX.  "  167 

his  person  fills  immensity,  his  sight  does  not  extend  one 
inch  from  him.  The  sight  of  an  ant  extends  but  a  few- 
inches  around  it,  while  that  of  a  man  extends  as  many 
miles.  As  God  surpasses  us  infinitely  more  than  we 
do  the  smallest  insect ;  we  must  suppose  he  can  sit  on 
his  throne  in  heaven,  and  see,  and  control  every  being 
in  the  universe  without  being  with  them  in  person. 

The  text  that  says,  God  fills  heaven  and  earth,  does 
not  prove  that  he  is  not  a  real  person  of  shape,  because 
it  is  said  of  Christ  that  he  ascended  up  far  above  all 
heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things  ;  and  we  all  ac- 
knowledge that  he  is  a  real  person  in  the  shape  of  a 
man.  It  is  very  possible  for  God  to  fill  heaven  and 
earth  without  doing  it  with  his  person.  A  great  king 
may  fill  a  country  with  his  armies,  military  stores,  laws, 
and  officers,  while  his  person  will  not  rill  one  house. — 
So  God  can  fill  heaven  and  earth  w  ith  his  armies,  his 
power,  his  infinite  riches,  and  perfections,  till  they  are 
lightened  with  his  glory,  while  at  the  same  time  his 
blessed  person  is  seated  on  his  glorious  throne  w  ith  his 
Son  at  his  right  hand.  The  inspired  waiters  have  ex- 
plained how  God  fills  heaven  and  earth.  "  His  glory 
is  above  the  earth  and  heaven."  Psal.  cxlviii.  13. — 
"All  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord." 
Num.  xiv.  21.  "  For  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover 
the  sea.  Hab.  ii.  14.  The  earth  is  full  of  thy  riches." 
Psal.  civ.  24.  "  The  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glorv. 
Isa.  vi.  3. 

Object.  6.  To  represent  God  as  sitting  on  a  throne 
locally^  and  literally  surrounded  with  saints  and  angels, 
is  too  gross  for  spiritual  worship. 

Ans.  To  contemplate  God,  as  the  Sovereign  of  the 
universe,  seated  on  his  glorious  throne,  surrounded  by 
the  ministers  of  his  government,  with  Jesus  Christ,  his 
prime  minister,  at  his  right  hand,  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  believing  the  holy  scriptures.  If  it  is  wrong, 
the  error  must  be  charged  to  the  inspired  writers. — - 
Michaiah  says  :  '*  I  saw  the  Lord  sitting  on  his  throne, 
and  all  the  host  of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his  right 
hand,  and  on  his  left,"  1  King.  xxii.  19.    Isaiah  say.s;. 


168  GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON. 

**  I  saw  also  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne,  high  and 
lifted  up,  and  his  train  filled  the  temple.  Above  it 
stood  the  seraphims,  &c."  Isa.  vi.  1,  2,  3.  I  have 
already  quoted  Daniel's  vision  of  the  Ancient  of  days 
sitting  on  his  throne  with  the  multitude  before  him,  and 
committing  to  his  Son  the  mediatorial  dominion  and 
glory.  Just  before  Stephen  was  murdered,  he  said  : 
"  Behold  I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of 
man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God.'^  Act.  vii.  56, 
57.  On  hearing  this  expression  the  Jews  stopped  their 
ears,  and  ran  on  Stephen  with  great  fury  :  and  I  would 
not  be  surprised  if  the  spirit  which  then  influenced 
bigots  to  murder  him  for  preaching  this  doctrine,  should 
now  induce  them  to  call  me  a  fanatic  for  believing  it. 

If  Stephen  spoke  this  metaphorically,  then  by  the 
word  heavens  he  must  have  meant  the  gospel,  and  by  the 
right  hand  of  God,  the  favor  of  God,  if  so,  his  expres- 
sion would  amount  to  this,  "  I  now  see  into  the  gospel, 
and  am  convinced  that  the  Son  of  man  is  in  the  favor  of 
God."  Surely  Saint  Stephen  was  convinced  of  this 
before  that  time  of  his  life.  There  can  be  no  doubt  but 
that  he  saw  it  literally,  because,  "  He  being  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  looked  up  steadfastly  into  heaven,  and 
saw  the  glory  of  God,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right 
hand  of  God,  and  said,  behold  I  see  the  heavens  open- 
ed, and  the  Son  of  man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of 
God."  He  took  the  most  effectual  method  to  make  the 
people  believe  that  he  then  saw  it  with  his  natural  eyes, 
and  if  he  did  not,  he  was  an  impostor.  If  any  one  should 
object  t-;  this  on  the  supposition  that  Stephen  could  not 
see  so  far,  I  answer,  that  it  was  as  easy  for  God  to  enable 
him  to  see  a  hundred  millions  of  miles,  as  fifty  yards. 

John  says,  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit,  and  behold  a  throne 
was  set  in  heaven,  and  one  sat  on  the  throne,  and  he 
that  sat,  was  to  look  upon  like  a  jasper,  and  a  sardine 
stone,  and  there  was  a  rainbow  round  about  the  throne 
in  sight  like  unto  an  emerald.  And  round  about  the 
throne  were  four  and  twenty  seats,  anil  upon  the  seats  I 
saw  four  and  twenty  elders  sitting  clothed  in  v.hite." 
Rev.  iv.  2,  3,  4.  "  And  I  saw  in  the  right  hand  of  him 
that  sat  upon  the  throne,  a  book  written  within,  and  on 
the  back  side  sealed  with  seven  seals.     And  I  beheld. 


GOD,    A    REAL    PERSON.  169 

vind  Ic,  in  the  midst  of  the  throne,  and  of  the  four  beasts, 
greek,  living  creatures,)  and  in  the  midst  of  the  elders 
stood  a  Lamb,  as  it  had  been  slain. — And  he  came  and 
took  the  book  out  of  the  right  hand  of  him  that  sat  upon 
fhe  throne."  Chap.  v.  6.  7.  If  on  this  subject  I  am 
wrong,  I  err  in  good  company.  If  God  is  shapeless, 
without  body,  parts,  or  passions,  with  his  centre  every 
^vhere,  and  his  circumference  no  where,  all  the  inspired 
writers  have  misrepresented  him.  It  is  not  probable 
that  every  thing  in  these  symbolical  representations 
should  be  understood  literally,  but  as  the  host  of  heaven, 
the  seraphim,  the  great  multitude,  the  twenty-four  elders, 
the  four  living  creatures,  and  the  Lamb  as  it  had  been 
slain  are  all  real  persons,  and  as  shape  and  place  are  as 
much  ascribed  to  God,  as  to  them,  the  visions  go  as  far 
to  prove  that  he  has  a  shape,  and  a  local  habitation,  as 
that  they  have. 

Object.  7.  .Yearly  all  the  Christians  believe  iJiat  God 
is  shapeless,  and  that  his  person  fdls  all  space. 

Ans.  Although  many  good  people  admit  this  doc« 
trine,  it  is  probable  that  they  merely  receive  it  as  an 
opinion  of  the  head,  but  at  the  same  time  do  not  firmly 
believe  it  in  their  hearts,  because  all  sincere  Christians, 
when  they  worship  God,  express  the  faith  of  their  hearts, 
and  we  know  that  when  these  people  pray  to  him,  they 
describe  him  on  a  throne,  with  his  Son  at  his  right  hand, 
or  pleading  before  him,  and  surrounded  by  angels  and 
eiders  who  veil  their  laces  before  him,  and  cast  their 
crowns  at  his  ^eet. 

If  God's  person  fills  all  space,  how  can  the  v.icked 
depart  from  him  into  everlasting  fire  ?  They  cannot  de- 
part from  him  in  a  moral  sense,  because  in  that  sense 
they  are  not  nigh  iiim  :  nor  would  he  command  them  to 
depart  from  him  in  that  sense,  for  that  v/ould  be  com- 
manding them  to  be  wicked,  and  God  is  not  the  author 
of  wickedness.  To  assert  that  it  is  from  Christ,  and 
not  from  the  Father  that  sinners  must  depart,  will  not 
lielp  Trinitarians  out  of  the  difnculty,  for  they  think  thai 
he  and  his  Father  are  one  being.  Nor  will  it  assist  any 
'•>ne  who  believes  the  plain  truth  on  the  subject,  because 
16 


ITO  ''66D,   A   REAL   fEtLSOJf, 

the  scripture  says  Christ  has  ascended  up  to  God,  bXlS 
has  set  down  with  him  in  his  throne. 

If  Christ  is  with  the  Father  in  his  throne,  the  wicked 
cannot  depart  from  him  without  departing  from  his 
Father.  In  fact  the  idea  of  the  wicked  being  banished 
from  the  Son,  but  not  from  the  Father  is  too  absurd  to 
need  refutation.  If  God's  person  fills  all  space,  the 
wicked  will  have  to  be  banished  from  him,  to  him.  And 
if  his  centre  is  every  where,  they  will  have  to  depart 
from  his  centre,  to  his  centre,  and  that  in  a  local  sense, 
because  persons  that  are  already  ahenated  from  God  in 
the  spirit  of  their  minds,  cannot  depart  from  him  in  a 
moral  sense. 

If  God  is  as  much  in  hell  as  he  is  any  where  else,  the 
wicked  could  not  depart  from  him  to  go  there.  The 
phrase,  *'  depart  from  me  into  everlasting  fire^''^  prove?? 
that  God,  and  hell  fire  are  not  in  the  same  place. 


PART  V. 

THOUGHTS  ON  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT, 
CHAPTER   I. 


rO    PROVE    THAT    THE   HOLT    SPIRIT    IS    NOT    A   DISTINCT    PERSON 
FROM    GOD. 


The  Spirit  of  God  is  not  a  distinct  person  from  him. 
any  more  than  my  spirit  is  a  distinct  person  from  me. 
God's  Spirit  bears  tiie  same  relation  to  God,  that  the 
spirit  of  man  does  to  man.  Hence  Paul  says,  "  For 
what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit 
of  man  which  is  in  him  1  Even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  spirit  of  a  person  is  frequently  mentioned  to  ex- 
press the  person,  as  in  the  foil » wing  text :  "  I  am  glad 
oi^  the  coming  of  Stephanas,  and  Fortunatus,  and  Achai- 
cus  :  for  that  which  was  lacking  on  your  part,  they  have 
supplied.  For  they  have  refreshed  my  spirit  and  yours  : 
therefore  acknowledge  ye  them  that  are  such."  1  Cor. 
16,  17,  18.  By  havmg  his  spirit,  and  the  spirit  of  his 
brethren  refreshed,  he  no  doubt  meant  that  he  and  they 
were  refreshed. 

In  concluding  his  letter  to  the  Galations,  and  his 
letter  to  Philemon,  Paul  says.  "The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  be  with  your  spirit."  By  the  word  spirit 
In  both  these  letters,  he  most  probably  intended  to  ex- 
press the  persons,  because  in  concluding  most  of  his 


Ii2  THE    HOLY   SPIR5T, 

Other  epistles  lie  says,  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesuit 
Chiist  be  with  you,"  or  words  to  that  amount. 

David  says,  "  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit  ? 
or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence  ?  If  I  ascend 
up  into  heaven,  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell, 
behold  thou  art  there^  Psal.  cxxxix.  7,  8.  Here 
the  Psalmist  clearly  shows,  that  'by  God's  Spirit  he 
means  God  himself.  Also  in  the  following  text  God's 
Spirit  is  mentioned  to  signify  God's  self.  "  The  Spirit 
of  God  hath  made  me,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty 
hath  given  me  life."  Job.  xxxiii. 4.  "But  they  re- 
belled, and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit :  therefore  he  was 
turned  to  be  their  enemy,  and  he  fought  against  them.'' 
Isa.  Ixiii.  10.  This  text  is  to  the  point ;  by  vexing  the 
Lord's  Holy  Spirit,  they  vexed  the  Lord,  therefore  the 
Lord's  Spirit  was  the  Lord,  and  not  an  intelligent  per- 
son distinct  from  him.  "  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why 
hath  Satan  filled  thy  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost, and  to 
keep  back  par^  of  the  price  of  the  land  ?  while  it  re- 
mained, was  it  not  thine  own?  and  after  it  was  sold^ 
was  it  not  in  thine  own  power  ?  why  hast  thou  conceived 
this  thing  in  thine  heart  ?  Thou  hast  not  bed  unto  men. 
but  unto  God."  Acts  iii.  3,  4.  It  is  impossible  to  di- 
vide between  any  being  and  his  spirit,  so  as  to  make 
two  distmct  persons  of  them.  If  you  refresh  my  spirit, 
you  refresh  me,  and  if  you  vex  my  spirit,  you  vex  me  : 
just  so  when  they  vexed  the  Lord's  Holy  Spirit,  they 
vexed  the  Lord  ;  and  when  they  lied  to  his  Holy  Spirit, 
they  lied  to  him.  That  God  and  his  Holy  Spirit  are 
the  same  person,  will  appear  by  comparing  the  follow- 
ing passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  "  Also 
I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying,  whom  shall  I  send, 
and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  Then  I  said  here  am  I ;  send 
me.  And  he  said  go  and  tell  this  people,  hear  ye  in- 
deed, but  understand  not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but  per- 
ceive not.  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat  and  make 
their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes  ;  lest  they  see  with 
their  eyes,  and  hear  %\ith  their  ears,  and  understand  with 
their  heart,  and  convert  and  be  healed."  Isa.  vi.  8,  9, 
10.  Here  it  is  said  that  God  sent  Isaiah  to  speak  these 
things  ;  bnt  in  the  New  Testament  Paul  ascribes  this 
fspeech  to  the  Holv  Ghost.     "  Well  spake  the  Hol\ 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  ItTS 

Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying, 
go  unto  this  people  and  say,  hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and 
shall  not  understand  ;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  not 
perceive,  &c."  Acts  xxviii.  25,  26,  27.  That  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  sometimes  mentioned  to  express  God 
himself,  is  still  more  evident  by  comparing  the  following 
passages.  "  Whereof,  the  Holy  Gho.«-t  also  is  a  wit- 
ness to  us  :  for  after  that  he  had  said  before,  this  is  the 
covenant  that  I  will  make  with  them  after  those  days, 
saith  the  Lord  ;  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  hearts,  and 
in  their  minds  will  I  write  them ;  and  their  sins  and  ini- 
quities will  I  remember  no  more."  Heb.  x.  15,  16,  17. 
"  But  this  shall  he  the  covenant  that  1  will  make  with 
the  house  of  Israel ;  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I 
will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in 
their  hearts,  &c."  Jer.  xxxi.  33.  Paul  says,  this 
promise  was  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Jeremiah 
says  God  made  it,  I  suppose  the  meaning  of  both  is  that 
God  by  his  Spirit  spoke  through  the  prophet. 

In  the  following  text  the  Psalmist  represents  God  as 
speaking  to  the  people.  "  Harden  not  your  hearts  as 
in  the  provocation,  and  as  in  the  day  of  temptation  in 
the  wilderness  :  when  your  fathers  tempted  me,  proved 
me,  and  saw  my  work.  Forty  years  long  was  I  grieved 
with  this  generation."  Psal.  xcv.  8,  9,  10.  Paul  as- 
cribes this  speech  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  Wherefore, 
(as  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  to-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his 
voice,  harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the  provocation,  in 
the  day  of  temptation  in  the  wilderness ;  when  your 
fathers  tempted  me,  proved  me,  and  saw  my  works  forty 
years."  Heb.  iii.  7,  8,  9.  By  these  passages  of  scrip- 
ture it  is  evident  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  frequently  men- 
tioned to  express  the  person  of  God. 

It  is  plain  from  the  Old  Testament  that  God  sent  the 
prophets,  and  spoke  by  them,  because  whenever  they 
delivered  a  prophecy,  they  began  with  saying,  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord ;"  or  by  saying  some  other  words  of  that 
meaning.  But  Peter  ascribes  their  prophecies  to  th/i 
dictation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  says,  "  For  the  prophe- 
cy came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  :  but  holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  2  Pet.  i.  21.  Paul  says,  "  God  at  sundry 
15* 


174  THE    HOLY    spirit/ 

times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the 
fathers  by  the  prophets."  Heb.  i.  1.  If  God  spoke  b} 
the  prophets,  and  at  the  same  time  those  very  speeches 
were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  God  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  must  be  the  same  being  ;  unless  it  can  be 
proved  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct  being  from  God,  and 
acted  as  his  agent  or  instrument,  and  if  it  is  God's  in- 
strument or  agent,  it  cannot  be  a  person  coequal,  nor 
coeternal  with  kim. 

When  one  person  acts  as  the  instrument  or  agent  of 
another,  the  same  actions  and  works  can  with  propriety 
be  ascribed  to  them  both.  But  in  that  case,  the  instru- 
ment or  agent  is  always  inferior  to  his  employer,  there- 
fore the  above  passages  of  scripture  will  oblige  us  to 
either  acknowledge  that  God  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
the  same  being,  or  else  t^iat  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  being 
distinct  from,  and  inferior  to  God. 

That  the  Spirit  of  God  is  sometimes  mentioned  to 
signify  God  himself,  appears  from  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  But  there  are  diversities  of  operations  ;  but  it 
is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all  in  all.  For  to  one 
is  given  by  the  Spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom  ;  to  another 
the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  spirit ;  to  another 
faith  by  the  same  spirit ;  to  another  the  gifts  of  healing 
by  the  same  spirit ;  to  another  the  working  of  miracles  ; 
to  another  prophecy,  to  another  discerning  of  spirits  ;  to 
another  diverse  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  another  the  inter- 
pretation of  tongues  :  but  all  these  worketh  that  one,  and 
the  self-same  spirit."  1  Cor.  xii.  6 — 11.  In  this  pas- 
sage you  will  observe  that  it  is  first  asserted  that  God 
distributes  these  gifts,  and  works  these  miracles;  and 
then  it  is  affirmed  that  the  Spirit  distributes  these  gifts, 
and  w^orks  these  miracles.  And  in  the  ISth  verse  the 
distribution  of  these  gifts  is  again  ascribed  to  God  thus  : 
"  But  now  hath  God  set  the  members,  every  one  of 
them  in  the  body,  as  it  hath  pleased  him."  From  these 
texts  it  is  evident  that  the  w^ords  God,  and  Holy  Sjnrii. 
are  at  least  sometimes  synonymous,  of  which,  if  there 
is  any  farther  evidence  needed,  it  is  furnished  by  Paul 
in  the  following  text :  "Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit,  and 
where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty.  But 
^.ve  all  with  open  face  beholding  as  in  a  glass  the  glory 


IHE    HOLY   spirit/  175 

of  the  Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from 
glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord."  2 
Cor.  iii.  17,  18.  Here  the  apostle  shows  that  because 
the  Ijord  is  that  Spirit,  we  are  by  the  operations  of  it 
changed  into  his  image.  If //le  Lord  is  that  Spirit,  thal 
Spirit  is  not  a  distinct  person  from  the  Lord. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  sometimes  used  to  express  the 
power  of  God,  which  will  appear  by  comparing  the  fol- 
lowing texts  :  "  But  if  I  with  the  finger  of  God  cast  out 
devils,  no  doubt  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon 
you."  Luk.  xi.  20.  "  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
spirit  of  God,  then  the  kmgdom  of  God  is  come  unto 
you."  Mat.  xii.  28.  By  this  it  appears  that  the  same 
thing  is  ascribed  to  God's  spirit,  and  to  his  finger.  I 
now  ask  is  God's  finger  a  distinct  person  from  himself? 
But  it  will  be  answered  that  God's  finger  represents  his 
power.  To  this  I  agree  ;  but  then  I  ask,  is  God's 
power  a  distinct  person  from  himself? 

That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  sometimes  mentioned  to  ex- 
press the  power  of  God,  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the 
following  verses  :  "  And  behold,  I  send  the  promise 
of  my  Father  upon  you  :  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Je- 
rusalem, until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high.'* 
Luk.  xxiv.  49.  This  promise  of  being  endued  with 
power  from  on  high,  was  no  doubt  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  appears  from  the  words  he  spoke  to  them 
after  his  resurrection.  "  And  being  assembled  togeth- 
er with  them,  commanded  them  that  they  should  not  de- 
part from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the 
Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me  ;  for  John 
truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but  you  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  Act.  i. 
4,  5 — 8.  "  But  ye  shall  receive  power  after  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you." 

As  God  is  infinite  in  all  his  perfections,  he  can  com- 
municate his  spirit  to  his  creatures,  and  influence  them 
by  it  in  every  part  of  the  universe  at  his  pleasure.  And 
when  his  Spirit  is  mentioned  as  a  witness,  a  teacher,  or 
a  comforter,  the  meaning  is  that  he  bears  witness  to  the 
truth,  or  teaches,  or  comforts  his  people,  by  his  Spirit. 
When  we  receive  his  Spirit  we  do  not  literally  receive 
ais  person,  so  as  to  have  it  incorporated  in  our  persons-- 


X*t6'  THE    HOLT    SPIRIT/ 

but  we  partake  of  his  nature,  and  become  the  wllhug 
subjects  of  his  government.  I  think,  however,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  something  more  than  a  mere  quahty,  it  is 
real  being,  and  yet  not  a  distinct  person  from  the  Fa- 
ther. It  is  represented  under  the  figure  of  water,  of 
wine,  and  of  oil,  and  was  proimbly  typified  by  the  sweet 
anointing  oil  that  was  kept  in  the  temple  to  anoint  the 
high  priests,  to  counterfeit  which  was  death  by  the  law. 
Our  knowledge  of  the  divine  essence  is  extremely  lim- 
ited ;  but  Ehhu  indicates  that  God's  Spirit  is  his  breath: 
hence  he  says  :  "The  Spirit  of  God  made  me,  and  the 
breath  of  the  Almighty  hath  given  me  life."  Job.  xxxiii. 
4.  David  holds  out  the  idea  that  the  host  of  heaven 
was  made  by  God's  breath.  "  By  the  word  of  the 
Lord  were  the  heavens  made  :  and  all  the  host  of  them 
by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  Psal.  xxxiii.  6.  Job 
says  :  "  By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens." 
Job.  xxvi.  13.  Isaiah  says  of  Christ,  that  "  He  shall 
smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with  the 
breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked."  Isa.  xi.  4. 
Paul  says :  "  And  then  shall  that  Wicked  be  revealed, 
whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  "with  the  spirit  of  his 
mouth."  2  Thes.  ii.  8.  Eliphaz.  says  :  "  By  the  blast 
of  God  they  perish,  and  by  the  breath  of  his  nostrils  are 
tliey  consumed."  Job.  iv.  9.  "  Tophet  is  ordained  of 
old ;  yea,  for  the  King  it  is  prepared  ;  he  hath  made  it 
deep  and  large;  the  pile  thereof  75  fire,  and  much  wood  : 
the  breath  of  the  Lord,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone  doth 
kindle  it."  Isa.  xxx.  33.  From  these  passages  it  ap- 
pears that  God's  breath,  and  his  Spirit,  at  least  some- 
times, mean  the  same  thing.  The  Hebrew  Rooh,  and 
and  the  Greek  Pneiima,  which  are  the  names  of  the 
spirit  of  God  in  the  original  scriptures,  are  the  same 
words  that  we  have  translated  wind  and  air.  Although 
my  breath  has  a  real  existence,  still  it  is  not  a  distinct 
person  from  me  ;  and  notwithstanding  it  is  nothing  but 
natural  air,  yet  its  connexion  with  me  is  essential  to 
my  natural  life.  As  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  infinite  in  all 
his  perfections,  his  breath  must  be  as  much  superior  to 
our  breath,  as  he  is  to  us.  It  was  by  his  breath  that  a 
rational  soul  was  breathed  into  Adam.  The  miracu- 
Tous  efFiLsions  of  his  spirit  is  represented  as  a  refino•^^ 


THE    HOLY    SPIRIT,  177 

tire,  which  is  generally  accompanied  with  a  blast  oi 
wind  :  hence  it  is  in  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew  call- 
ed a  fan,  by  which  the  chaff  is  separated  from  the  wheat. 
And  when  it  was  poured  out  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
it  came  like  a  mighty  rushing  wind.  And  when  Jesus 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost  to  give  to  his  disciples, 
he  communicated  it  to  them  by  breathing  on  them. — 
Hence  it  is  said,  "  He  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  un- 
to them,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."     Job.  xx.  22. 

Christ  ascribes  the  new  birth  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
illustrates  its  operation  by  comparing  it  to  the  natural 
wind.  Thus  he  says  :  "  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. 
Marvel  n>t  that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born  again. 
The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the 
sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and 
whither  it  goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit."     Job.  iii.  6,  7,  8. 

As  the  natural  wind  or  air  is  too  thin  for  us  to  see 
with  our  natural  eyes,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  cannot  be 
fully  comprehended  by  the  eyes  of  our  understanding; 
but  as  we  can  feel  the  former  blow  on  our  bodies,  so  we 
can  feel  the  latter  operate  on  our  minds  ;  and  as  draw- 
ing breath  in  the  natural  air  is  necessary  to  natural  life, 
so  a  constant  supply  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  essential  to 
spiritual  life,  or  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul ;  and  as  the 
natural  wind  drives  mists,  and  noxious  vapors,  from  our 
atmosphere  ;  so  God's  Holy  Spirit  dispels  the  mists  of 
error,  and  unbelief,  and  removes  evil  aftections  from 
our  minds. 

But  still  I  do  not  pretend  to  say,  that  God's  Spirit  in 
its  substance  has  the  least  resemblance  of  natural  wind, 
because  as  I  cannot  see  the  particles  of  the  natural 
wind  so  as  to  describe  them,  I  am,  of  course,  still  more 
disqualified  to  define  the  substance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  as  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  natural  wind  is 
more  useful  to  us  than  it  would  be  if  we  could  see  it 
as  plain  as  we  see  trees  and  stones.  So  it  is  quite 
probable  that  our  inability  to  describe  the  substance  oi 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  precise  manner  of  its  operations^ 
is  in  our  present  mortal  state,  a  blessing  instead  of  ar^ 
evil 


178  THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

When  I  blow  a  horn,  I  make  a  loud  noise  with  my 
i)reath  ;  when  I  blow  on  a  flute,  I  make  a  melodious 
sound  with  my  breath ;  when  I  blow  out  a  candle,  I 
extinguish  a  light  with  my  breath  ;  when  I  blow  the  fire, 
I  kindle  a  flame  with  my  breath  ;  I  can  blow  warm,  or 
I  can  blow  cold  with  my  breath,  and  when  I  wish  to  do 
it,  I  can  speak,  bear  witness,  or  teach,  with  my  breath  : 
and  yet  all  these  actions  may  be,  with  truth  and  pro- 
priety, ascribed  to  me,  or  to  my  breath,  or  to  my  power, 
or  to  my  understanding.  So  I  think  God  can  teach,  in- 
struct, comfort,  bear  witness,  kill  and  make  alive,  or  do 
any  thing  else  that  he  pleases  by  his  Spirit,  and  yet  his 
Spirit  not  be  a  distinct  person  from  himself. 

Although  I  have  quoted  some  passages  which  seem 
to  prove  that  the  breath  of  the  Lord  is  sometimes  men- 
tioned to  represent  his  Spirit,  yet  I  do  not  pretend  to 
say,  that  God's  breath  is  his  Spirit,  because  I  do  not 
know.  I  do  not  understand  the  .-ub.-tance  of  my  own 
spirit,  much  less  that  of  the  divine  Being.  But  I  have 
used  the  above  illustration  to  show  that  all  the  language 
used  in  scripture  relative  to  God  and  his  Holy  Spirit* 
may  be  consistently  understood  without  making  him» 
and  it.  to  be  two  distinct  persons. 


THE    HOLY   SPIRit,  '179 


CHAPTER  II. 


{Tlie  same  subject  continued. 


Some  suppose  that  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  a 
witness,  that  it  must  therefore  be  a  person.  But  many 
things  are  mentioned  in  scripture  as  witnesses,  as  well 
as  persons.  Works  are  called  a  witness;  hence,  Christ 
says  :  ''  But  I  have  greater  vime-s  than  that  of  John  ; 
for  the  works  which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish 
the  same  works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me."  Joh.  v. 
36.  Chap.  X.  25.  "  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Fa- 
ther's name,  they  bear  witne.->  of  me." 

The  gospel  is  called  a  witness.  *'  And  this  gospel 
of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for 
a  witness  unto  all  nations  ;  and  then  shall  the  end 
come."  Mat.  xxiv.  14.  Surely  the  gospel  is  not  a 
person. 

The  Psalniist  intimates  that  the  moon  is  a  witness.^ — 
Speaking  of  the  covenant  made  with  David,  he  says  : 
*'  His  seed  shall  endure  forever,  and  his  throne  as  the 
sun  before  me.  It  shall  be  established  forever  as  the 
moon,  and  as  a  faithful  witness  in  heaven."  Psa?. 
Ixxxix.  36,  37. 

A  covenant  is  called  a  witness.  Laban  said  to  Ja- 
cob :  "  Now,  therefore,  come  thou,  let  us  make  a  cove- 
nant, I  and  thou ;  and  let  it  be  for  a  witness  between 
me  and  thee."  A  heap  of  stones  is  called  a  witness, 
which  appears  from  the  following  verses  ;  "  And  Jacob 
took  a  stone,  and  set  it  up  for  a  pillar.  And  Jacob  said 
unto  his  brethren,  gather  stones  :  and  they  took  stones 
and  made  a  heap.  And  Laban  said,  this  heap  is  a  wit- 
ness between  me  and  thee  this  day.  This  heap  be  a 
witness,  and  this  pillar  be  a  witness,  that  I  will  not  pass 
over  this  heap  to  thee,  and  that  thou  shalt  not  pass  over 
this  heap,  and  this  pillar  unto  me,  for  harm.  Gen-.  xxxl> 
44,  45,  46,  48,  52. 


180  THE   liOLY    SPIRIT, 

God  anointed  Christ  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  he 
says  ;  "  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me  ;  be- 
cause the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings 
unto  the  meek."  Isa.  Ixi.  i.  Luk.  iv.  18.  Psal.  xlv. 
7.  "For  of  a  truth  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom 
thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with 
the  Gentiles  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were  gathered 
together.-'  Act.  iv.  27.  "  How  God  anointed  Jesus 
of  ^Vazareth  Nvith  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  power  ;  who 
went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  v.ere  op^ 
pressed  of  the  devil ;  for  God  was  with  him."  Act. 
X.  38.  If  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  three  co- 
equal persons,  each  of  whom  is  God  in  the  highest 
sense  of  the  word,  then  in  these  passages  we  have  the 
first  person  anointing  the  second  person  with  the  third 
person.  But  if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God  in  the  highest 
sense,  how  could  he  be  used  as  an  instrument  in  the 
hand  of  the  first  person  to  anoint  the  second  person, 
when  the  second  person  was,  from  all  eternity,  as  great 
as  he  was  ? 

Saint  Peter  says  :  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up, 
whereof  we  all  are  witnesses.  Therefore  being  by  the 
right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the 
Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
torth  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  Act.  ii.  32, 
33.  If  Trinitarianism  be  true,  then  according  to  this 
text  the  first  person  gave  the  third  person  to  the  second 
person,  and  then  he  shed  him  forth  on  the  people.  But 
if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  intelligent  person,  and  God  in 
the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  how  could  he  be  confer- 
red as  a  gift  by  another  person  ?  The  giver  is  always 
supposed  to  have  power  over  the  gift  ;  but  if  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  supreme  God,  who  could  have  power  over 
him  to  dispose  of  him  ?  The  receiver  is  always  de- 
pendant on  the  giver,  and  enriched  by  the  gift,  if  it  is  a 
vakiable  one  ;  but  if  Jesus  Christ  is  the  self-existent, 
self-dependant,  supreme  God,  how  could  he  be  depend- 
ant on  God  for,  or  be  enriched  by,  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  1  No  doubt  the  people  who  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  that  time  felt  themselves  dependant  for  it,  and 
-enriched  by  it. 

It  is  as  plainly  said  that  it  was  given  to  Christj  a^ 


THE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  181 

iliat  it  was  given  to  them,  and  that  almost  in  the  same 
language. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  Christ,  there  must 
liave  been  a  time  when  it  was  given,  and  therefore  a 
time  before  it  was  given.  If  God  from  all  eternity  ex- 
isted in,  or  consisted  of,  three  persons,  how  could  there 
have  been  a  time  when  the  third  person  was  given  to 
the  second?  If  the  divine  essence  consists  of  three 
persons,  how  could  the  first  person  give  the  third  to  the 
second,  if  at  the  same  time  they  were  all  but  one  ration- 
al, indivisible  Being  ?  It  would  be  God  giving  himself 
to  himself. 

If  Jesus  is  equal  and  eternal  with  the  Father,  he 
must  have  been  from  all  eternity  in  possession  of  as 
much  Holy  Ghost  as  the  Father  was. 

I  can  easily  conceive  how  God  could  communicate 
his  Spirit  to  his  Son,  or  to  any  other  rational,  obedient 
'•reature  ;  but  to  say,  that  the  supreme,  rational,  indi- 
visible God  gave  himself  to  himself,  or  what  is  still 
worse,  gave  one  part  of  himself  to  another  part  of  him- 
self, appears  to  me  to  be  downright  nonsense. 

I  know  it  will  be  said,  that  the  divine  nature  gave  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  the  human  nature,  but  if  that  was  the 
fact,  then  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  Jesus 
Christ  had  no  divinity  in  him.  If  he  was  at  every  mo- 
ment of  his  life  as  really  and  properly  God  as  he  was 
a  man,  it  would  have  been  as  impossible  to  give  him  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  to  give  it  to  the  Father,  because  if  he 
was  the  supreme  God,  and  already  possessed  all  the 
Holy  Spirit  there  was  in  the  universe,  how  could  it  be 
given  to  him  ? 

Some  people  suppose,  that  because  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  sometimes  mentioned  in  the  mascuhne  gender  by  the 
))ronouns  he  and  his,  that  it  therefore  must  be  a  person. 
Hui  this  argument  is  inconclusive,  because  many  inani- 
mate things  are  in  scripture  put  in  the  masculine  and 
feminine  genders,  which  will  appear  from  the  follow- 
lowing  texts  :  "  The  wind  hath  bound  her  up  in  her 
wings."  Hos.  iv.  19.  "  The  wind  returneth  again 
according  to  his  circuit."  Eccles.  i.  6.  "  And  he 
made  a  molten  sea,  ten  cubits  from  the  one  brim  to  the 
<rther :  it  icas  round  all  about,  and  his  height  was  five 
16 


182  THE    H6LY   SFiniT. 

cubits."  1  King.  vii.  23.  "  Thou  shalt  also  make  3 
laver  of  brass,  and  his  foot  also  of  brass."  Exod.  xxx, 
18.  And  the  table  and  his  furniture,  and  the  pure  can- 
dlestick with  all  his  furniture,  and  the  altar  of  incense. 
And  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  with  all  his  furniture,  and 
the  laver,  and  his  foot."  Exod.  xxxi.  8,  9.  Jerusa- 
lem is  called  she.  Jer.  xxxiii.  16.  And  Wisdom  is 
called  she.     Prov.  ix.  1. 

In  the  Greek  Testament  the  pronoun  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  generally  expressed  by  a  particle,  which  prop- 
erly answers  to  the  English  pronoun  it,  and  is  but  a 
very  few  times  mentioned  by  the  Greek  word,  which, 
in  EngHsh,  is  properly  rendered  he  :  accordingly  in  the 
translation  by  Campbell,  McNight,  and  Dodridge^ 
the  Holy  Spirit  is,  I  think,  generally,  if  not  always  ren- 
dered in  the  neuter  gender.  And  so  it  sometimes  is  in 
the  common  translation,  as  in  the  following  texts  : — 
"'  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  Spirit." 
Rom.  viii.  17.  "  And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw 
the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it 
abode  upori  him.  Job.  i.  32.  In  1  Joh.  ii.  27,  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  called  an  anointing-,  and  is  mentioned  in 
the  neuter  gender.  But  the  anointing  which  ye  have 
received  of  him  abideth  in  you  :  and  ye  need  not  that 
any  man  teach  you  :  but  as  the  same  anointing  teach- 
eth  you  of  all  things,  and  is  truth,  and  is  no  lie,  and 
even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall  abide  in  him." — - 
The  unction  and  theanointing  spoken  of  in  this  chapter. 
1X0  doubt  signify  a  portion  of  God's  Holy  Spirit. 

"  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  anoth- 
ei-  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever.  Even 
the  spirit  of  truth."  <'But  the  Comforter,  ivhich  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  shall  teach  you  all  things."  Joh.  xiv.  16,  17,  26. 
Here  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  be  sent  by  the  Falhei*. 
If  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  supreme  God,  I  do  not  see 
how  he  could  send  himself;  but  I  can  easily  conceive 
how  he  can  send,  or  communicate  his  Holy  Spirit  to 
his  creatures. 

"  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send 
Lii]to  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 
proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me." — 
Joh,.xvi.  2^.     If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person,  he  must 


tllE   HOLY   SPIRIT.  183 

he  inferior  to  Christ,  because  he  had  power  to  send 
liim.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Father  are  one,  and 
the  self-same  Being,  I  cannot  see  how  he,  as  a  person, 
could  proceed  from  himself  I  never  knew  any  per- 
son to  proceed  from  himself.  Nor  can  I,  for  the  life  oi 
me,  see  how  Christ  could  send  the  self-existent  su- 
preme God.  If  he  is  inferior  to  God,  he  could  have 
no  power  to  send  him.  And  if  he  is  the  very  God,  and 
all  the  God  there  is  in  the  universe,  he  could  not  send 
himself  He  could  not  be  active  in  sending,  and  pas- 
sive in  being  sent  at  the  same  time. 

But  if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing  but  the  Spirit  of 
God,  I  can  easily  conceive  how  it  could  proceed  from 
the  Father,  as  a  stream  from  a  fountain,  or  as  heat 
from  a  firo,  or  light  from  the  sun,  and  so  be  communi- 
cated to  Christ,  and  by  him  sent,  or  infused,  into  the 
hearts  of  his  people. 

"When  Christians  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  receive 
God  in  a  spiritual  sense  ;  they  partake  of  his  nature, 
are  conformed  to  his  will,  his  law  is  written  on  their 
hearts,  and  he  dwells  in  them  by  his  Spirit.  Hence, 
Paul  says  :  "  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of 
God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ?"  1 
Cor.  iii.  16.  Chap.  vi.  19.  *'  Know  ye  not  that  your 
body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ivhich  is  in  you, 
which  ye  have  of  God  1"  Again  he  says  :  "  In  whom 
ye  also  are  buiWed  together  for  a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit."     Ephes.  ii.  22. 

The  following  passage  has  been  brought  to  prove 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  person  from  God  : — 
^'  Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities  ;  for 
we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought : 
but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with 
groanings  that  cannot  be  uttered.  And  he  that  search- 
eth  the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  spirit, 
because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  Saints  accord?^ 
ing  to  the  will  of  God."  Rom.  viii.  26,  27.  If  the 
Spirit,  which  is  mentioned  in  this  text,  is  a  person  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  he  must  be  inferior  to  God,  and 
a  Being  capable  of  the  deepest  sorrow.  If  he  was  not 
inferior  to  God,  and  dependant  on  him,  he  would  not 
intercede  with,  nor  pray  to  him  for  the  Saints.      And  if 


l&i  THE    HOLY   SriRIT. 

he  was  not  susccptiljle  of  grief,  he  would  be  iiicapabiV 
of  those  unutterable  groans. 

That  the  self-existent,  self-dependant,  supreme  God 
-should  pray  to  himself,  or  to  another  person,  Nvho  is 
also  a  supreme  God,  in  such  an  agony  with  such  unut- 
terable groans,  appears  very  unreasonable  to  me.  In 
this  case  Trinitarians  cannot  resort  to  their  common 
expedient  to  evade  the  force  of  the  argument :  they 
cannot  say  it  was  his  human  nature  praying  to  his  divint 
nature  ;  and  that  it  was  his  human  nature  which  was 
susceptible  of  these  unutterable  groans  ;  because  they 
do  not  hold  that  the  third  person  of  the  trinity  ever  had 
a  human  nature. 

I  think  the  true  meaning  of  the  above  text  is  this, 
God,  by  his  Spirit,  enlightens  our  minds,  shows  us  our 
moral  condition,  teaches  us  what  we  need,  promotes  in 
us  a  spirit  of  prayer,  fills  us  with  humility,  and  a  godl v 
sorrow  for  sin,  and  by  dictating  suitable  words  to  us, 
enables  us  to  pray  to  him  with  contrition  of  soul,  and 
groanings  that  cannot  be  uttered.  Paul  says  :  "Though 
there  be  that  are  called  Gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  in 
earth,  (as  there  be  Gods  many,  and  Lords  many,)  but 
to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
j^y  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  by  him."  Here  Paul 
is  distinguishing  the  proper  objects  of  worship  from  the 
Lords  many,  and  Gods  many,  that  are  mentioned  in 
the  preceding  verse,  and  if  he  knew  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  an  intelligent  person,  in  all  respects  equal  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  why  did  he  not  mention  him  1 
And  if  Paul  knew  that  a  third  person,  viz.  the  Holy 
S^pirit,  was  as  much  the  author  of  all  things  as  the  Fa- 
ther was,  why  did  he  ascribe  all  things  to  the  Father  ? 
In  this  text  the  Apostle  restricts  us  to  the  worship  oi 
tAvo  persons,  viz.  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
^.  "Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Father  of  Mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  com- 
fort ;  who  comforteth  us  in  all  our  tribulation."'  2  Cor. 
i.  3,  4.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  an  intelligent  person,  co- 
equal, and  coeternal  with  the  Father,  how  could  the 
Father  be  the  God  of  a//  comfort  ?  If  the  trinity  doc- 
trine be  true,  each  one  of  the  three  persons  is  equally 
the  God  of  all  comfort.     But  this  text  says,  the  Father 


THE   HOLY    SPIRIT.  185 

j-s  the  God  of  all  comfort,  therefore  the  trinity  doctrine 
cannot  be  true. 

*' But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from 
the  dead,  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the 
dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit 
that  dwelleth  in  you."  Rom.  viii.  11.  "  For  Christ 
also  hath  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust, 
that  he'might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit."  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  In 
these  passages  the  Spirit  is  mentioned  as  an  instrument 
in  the  hand  of  God,  by  which  he  raised  Christ,  and 
will  hereafter  raise  Christians  from  the  dead.  If  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  a  person  distinct  from  the  Father,  and 
really  God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  I  cannot 
see  how  he  could  be  used  as  an  instrumenfin  the  hand 
of  another  person.  But  if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing 
but  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  not  a  distinct  person  from 
him,  I  can  easily  understand  these  passages  ;  because, 
as  God  is  a  Spirit,  if  he  can  quicken  people,  and  raise 
them  from  the  dead  at  all,  he  can  do  it  by  his  Spirit.  If 
a  man  should  say  that  he  founded  a  society,  or  accumu- 
lated a  fortune  by  his  wisdom,  we  would  not  under- 
stand from  such  expressions,  that  his  wisdom  was  a  dis- 
tinct person  from  himself,  even  so  when  God  says_, 
chat  he  teaches,  enlightens,  quickens  us,  or  raises  us 
from  the  dead  by  his  Spirit,  we  should  not  take  up  the 
notion  that  his  Spirit  is  a  distinct  Being  from  himoclf. 

Paul  says,  that  Christ  must  reign  till  all  things  arc 
put  under  him  ;  and  then  observes  :  "  But  when  he 
saith,  all  things  are  put  under  him  ;  it  is  manifest  that 
he  is  excepted, which  did  put  all  things  under  him."  1 
Cor.  XV.  27.  Now  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  distinct  per- 
son, equal  with  th§  Father,  it  appears  to  me  that  he,  as 
well  as  the  Father,  should  have  been  excepted  from  be- 
ing put  under  Christ.  According  to  the  trinity  doctrine 
this  text  would  have  been  more  properly  written  : — 
"  Theij  are  excepted  ichich  did  put  all    things  under 

Speaking  of  the  day  of  judgement,  Christ  says  :  <'But 
of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  an- 
gels of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only."      Mat.  xxiv.  36. 
•♦  But  of  that  day,  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no; 
16* 


iSG  THE    HOLY   SPIRIT. 

not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  buf 
the  Father."  Mark.  xih.  32.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  is  u 
real  person,  equal  in  knowledge  to  the  Father,  Christ- 
no  doubt,  would  have  excepted  him  as  well  as  the  Fa- 
ther from  being  ignorant  of  Avhen  the  day  of  judgement 
will  be.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  an  intelligent  person  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father,  and  equal  to  him  in  knowledge- 
then  these  passages  are  not  true.  In  this  case  Trini- 
tarians cannot  say  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  they  do  of  Christ. 
viz.,  that  as  man  he  did  not  know,  but  as  God  he  did 
know,  because  they  do  not  hold  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  any  manhood. 

There  is  not  one  example  in  the  scripture  of  prayer, 
praise,  or  thanks,  being  offered  up  to  the  Holy  Spirit : 
therefore  those  who  worship  it  as  a  distinct  person  from 
the  Father,  do  it  without  any  scripture  authority. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person  in  the  same  sense  thar 
the  Father  is,  and  in  all  respects  equal  to  him,  surely 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles  would  have  prayed  to 
him,  and  in  all  respects  praised  him,  and  thaiiked  him 
a§  much  as  they  did  the  Father. 


PART  yi, 

ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE    SCRlPirRE    DOCTRINE    OF   AT0XE3IEKT- 

There  is  perhaps  no  doctrine  in  the  Christian  scrip- 
lures,  more  interesting  to  us  than  atonement.  The 
word  atonement  occurs  but  once  in  the  common  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament,  but  is  frequently  found  in 
the  Old.  The  doctrine  of  atonement  was  first  preached 
by  God  to  Moses,  in  Mount  Sinai ;  therefore,  in  ordei 
to  get  the  true  meaning  of  the  word,  we  should  try  to 
find  out  how  God  himself  applies  it  in  the  law  that  he 
gave  to  the  Jews. 

It  has  generally  been  preached  by  all  the  prevailing 
denominations  in  this  country,  that  when  an  atonemeni 
is  made,  the  design  of  it  is  to  reconcile  God  ;  hence  they 
■say  that  when  Christ  made  an  atonement  for  sinners,  he 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  their  room  and  steady 
and  by  bearing  the  wrath  of  God  in  their  stead,  recon- 
ciled him  to  them.  But  I  hope  to  show  that  this  doc- 
trine is  a  mistake. 

The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  atonement  is  to 
joleanse,  or  purify ;  and  the  secondary  meaning  of  it,  is 
to  reconcile,  or  appease,  which  will  appear  from  the  fol- 

fowin^  p^sagQS  of  scriDiure,  where  ther^  was  an  atj?n-p- 


ISS  ATONEMEKT. 

ment  made  for  the  purification  of  a  woman  after  chiid> 
birth.  "  She  shall  bring  a  lamb  of  the  first  year  for  a 
burnt-ofTering,  and  a  young  pigeon,  or  a  turtle  dove,  for 
a  sin-offering,  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  unto  the  priest ;  who  shall  offer  it  before 
the  Lord,  and  make  an  atonement  for  her,  and  she  shall 
be  cleansed."  *'  And  if  she  be  not  able  to  bring  a  lamb, 
then  she  shall  bring  two  turtles,  or  two  young  pigeons  : 
the  one  for  a  burnt-offering,  and  the  other  for  a  sin-offer- 
ing :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  her, 
and  she  shall  be  clean."-  Lev.  xii.  6,  7,  8.  The  ex- 
press design  of  this  atonement  was  to  cleanse.  It  could 
not  have  been  designed  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God, 
because  he  never  was  wroth  with  a  woman  for  having  a 
legitimate  child. 

There  was  an  atonement  made  for  the  leper,  to 
cleanse  him  from  the  uncleanness  of  his  leprosy.  "  And 
the  priest  shall  offer  the  sin-offering,  and  make  an  atone- 
ment for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  his  unclean- 
ness;  and  afterward  he  shall  kill  the  burnt-offering. 
And  the  priest  shall  ofTer  the  burnt-offering,  and  the 
meat-offering,  upon  the  altar :  and  the  priest  shall  make 
an  atonement  for  him,  and  he  shall  be  clean."  Lev. 
xiv.  19,  20.  "And  the  rest  of  the  oil  that  is  in  the 
priest's  hand  he  shall  put  upon  the  head  of  him  that  is  to 
be  cleansed,  to  make  an  atonement  for  him  before  the 
Lord."  Verse  29.  Here  the  atonement  was  made  by 
putting  oil  on  the  man's  head:  of  course  it  could  not  have 
been  designed  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God,  because  it 
is  not  at  all  probable  that  God  could  be  v.Toth  with  a 
man  for  having  the  leprosy,  any  more  than  he  would  be 
with  us  now  for  having  the  consumption,  or  the  palsy :  and 
it  is  still  more  improbable  that  he  would  pour  out  his 
wrath  on  a  little  oil,  in  order  to  reconcile  himself  to 
the  man  on  whose  head  it  was  poured.  In  the  30th  and 
31st  verses  of  this  chapter  it  is  said,  "  He  shall  offer 
the  one  of  the  turtle-doves,  or  of  the  young  pigeons, 
such  as  he  can  get  ;  even  such  as  he  is  able  to  get,  the 
one  for  a  sin-offering,  and  the  other /or  a  burnt- offering, 
with  the  meat-offering :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an 
-^tonemeot  for  him  thjit  is  to  be  cleansed  before  the 


ATONEMENT.  189 

Lord."  In  all  these  cases  the  atonement  was  designed 
to  cleanse  the  persons  for  whom  it  was  made. 

To  make  an  atonement  for  a  house  that  had  the 
leprosy  in  it,  the  law  required  the  following  process. 
"  And  he  shall  take  to  cleanse  the  house  two  birds,  and 
cedar-wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop  :  and  he  shall  kill 
one  of  the  birds  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water: 
and  he  shall  take  the  cedar-wood,  and  the  hyssop,  and 
the  scarlet,  and  the  living  bird,  and  dip  them  in  the  blood 
of  the  slain  bird,  and  in  the  running  water,  and  sprinkle 
the  house  seven  times  :  and  he  shall  cleanse  the  house 
with  the  blood  of  the  bird,  and  wiih  the  running  water, 
and  with  the  living  bird,  and  with  tne  cedar-wood,  and 
with  the  hyssop,  and  with  the  scarier :  but  he  shall  let  go 
the  living  bird  out  of  the  city  mto  the  open  lields,  and 
make  an  atonement  for  the  house,  and  it  shall  be  clean.'' 
Lev.  xiv.  49 — 53.  The  sole  object  of  this  atonement 
certainly  waa  to  cleanse  the  hoiu-^e,  because  it  is  impos- 
sible that  the  supreme  being  could  be  wroth  with  a  house, 
and  if  possible,  it  is  still  more  improbable  that  he  would 
pour  out  his  wrath  on  water,  the  blocd  of  a  dead  bird, 
cedar-wood,  hyssop,  and  scarlet,  in  order  to  reconcile 
himself  to  the  walls  of  a  house.  As  for  the  hving  bird 
he  did  not  pour  his  wrath  on  it,  because  it  was  let  go. 
and  never  hurt. 

That  God  used  the  word  atonement  to  signify  o 
cleansing,  is  plain  from  his  direction  to  Closes  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage.  "  Then  shall  he  kill  the  goat  of  the 
sin-offering,  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring  his  blood 
within  the  vail,  and  do  with  that  blood  as  he  did  with  the 
blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprmkle  it  upon  the  mercy- 
seat,  and  before  the  mercy-seat.  And  he  shall  make 
an  atonement  for  the  ho]y  place,  because  of  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  trans- 
gressions in  all  their  sins  :  and  so  shall  he  do  for  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation  that  remaineth  among 
them  in  the  midst  of  their  uncleanness.  And  there 
shall  be  no  man  in  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
when  he  goeth  in  to  make  an  atonement  in  the  hoh- 
place,  until  he  come  out,  and  have  made  an  atonemeni 
lor  himself,  and  for  his  household,  and  for  all  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel.     And  he  shall  go  out  unto  the  altai 


190  ATOXEMEXT. 

that  is  before  the  Lord,  and  make  an  atonement  for  i( : 
and  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and  of  thr 
blood  of  the  goat,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altai 
round  about.  And  he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  upor* 
it  with  his  finger  seven  times,  and  clean.se  it  and  hallow 
it  from  the  uncleanness  of  the  children  of  I^irael.  And 
v;hen  he  hath  made  an  end  of  reconciling  the  holy  place. 
and  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  and  the  altar,  he 
shall  bring  the  living  goat ;  and  Aaron  shall  lay  both  hie 
hands  upon  the  head  of  the  living  goat,  and  confess  over 
him  all  the  iniquities  oi  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all 
their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins,  putting  them  upon 
the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him  away  by  the 
hand  of  a  fit  man  into  the  wilderness.  And  the  goat 
shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a  land  not 
mhabited."     Lev.  xvi.  15 — 22. 

Here  there  v/as  an  atonement  made  for  the  taberna- 
cle, the  holy  place,  tho  altar,  the  piicst,  and  the  congre- 
gation, for  the  expres.^  purpo-e  of  cleansing  them. 

As  the  tabernacle,  the  holy  place  and  altar  never  were 
objects  of  God's  wrath,  the  atonement  made  for  them 
could  not  have  been  designed  to  appease  him.  But 
when  the  priest  finished  mak.ng  an  atonement  for  these 
things,  it  is  said  that  he  made  an  end  of  reconciling 
them  ;  hence  I  conclude  that  a  secondary  meaning  of 
the  word  atonement  is  to  rec  ncile.  "When  the  taber- 
nacle, the  holy  place,  and  the  altar  were  unclean,  they 
were  not  what  the  law  required  them  to  be,  but  were  in 
a  state  of  opposition,  or  irreconciliation  to  it ;  and  when 
they  were  cleansed,  they  were  reconciled  to  the  law. 
that  is,  they  were  conformed  to  its  requirements. 

Here  it  should  be  observed  that  the  atonement  was 
not  designed  to  reconcile  the  law  to  these  things,  nor  to 
the  people,  but  to  reconcile  them  to  it. 

When  there  was  an  atonement  made  for  sin,  the  de- 
sign of  it  was  to  cleanse  the  people  from  sin,  which  will 
appear  from  God's  own  expressions  in  the  30th  verse 
of  this  chapter.  "  For  on  that  day  shall  the  jwiest  make 
an  atonement  for  you,  to  cleanse  you,  that  ye  may  be 
clean  from  all  your  sins  before  the  Lord."  I  think  these 
quotations  must  be  sufficient  to  convince  every  man 
who  believes  the  Bible,  that  God's  definition  of  atonf> 


ATONEMENT.  \91 

Qient,  and  the  original  use  of  it  was  first  to  cleanse,  and 
secondly  to  reconcile. 

We  all  agree  that  Christ  came  to  make  an  atonement 
lor  sinners,  but  we  differ  about  the  design  of  the  atone- 
ment, and  the  persons  whom  it  was  intended  to  affect. 

Many  professors  of  religion  say  that  Christ  in  making 
an  atonement  appeased  divine  justice,  bore  the  wrath  of 
God  that  was  due  to  sinners,  fulfilled  the  law  of  God 
and  suffer  its  penalty  in  their  stead,  and  so  reconcile 
him  to  mankind. 

But  this  doctrine  is  not  in  the  Bible.  There  is  no 
lext  in  that  book  which  says,  he  made  satisfaction  toJKS- 
lice  for  sinners,  or  that  he  bore  the  wrath  of  God  that 
ivas  due  to  sinners,  or  that  h.Q  fulfilled  the  law,  or  suffered 
its  penally  instead  of  sinners ;  nor  is  there  any  text  that 
says  he  reconciled  God  to  nun. 

It  is  impossible  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  could 
apply  to  God,  or  have  any  effect  on  him  ;  because  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  cleanse,  and,  as  God 
never  was  unclean  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  it  is  impoc- 
hible  that  he  could  be  cleansed. 

The  secondary  meaning  of  the  word  atonement,  is  to 
reconcile.  This  is  equally  inapphcable  to  the  Divine 
Being,  because  reconciliation  nnplies  change,  and  it  is 
impossible  for  him  to  change.  He  says,  '' For  I  am 
the  Lord,  I  change  not ;  therefore  ye  sons  of  Jacob  are 
not  consumed.  Mai.  iii.  6.  The  advocates  of  surety 
righteousness  think  differently  from  this  text;  they  think 
that  because  God  has  changed,  and  become  reconciled 
to  sinners,  is  the  very  reason  v.hy  they  are  not  con- 
sumed. To  say  that  a  wrathful  being  is  propitiated, 
appeased,  or  reconciled,  and  at  the  same  time  not 
changed,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  he  is  changed,  but 
not  changed,  or  that  he  is  reconciled  but  not  reconciled. 

James  says,  "  Every  good  gift,  and  every  perfect 
'^ift  is  from  above  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of 
lights,  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of 
turning."  Jam.  i.  17.  Just  as  sure  as  these  scriptures 
jire  true,  that  say  God  is  unchangeable,  so  sure  that- 
idoctrine  which  says  Christ  appeased  his  wrath,  and  re- 
conciled him  to  sinners,  is  false^ 


192  ATONEMENT. 

As  the  atonements  under  the  law  were  never  designed 
to  affect  God,  but  always  intended  to  cleanse  those  for 
whom  they  were  made  from  disease,  pollution,  or  sin, 
and  reconcile  them  to  the  law  of  God,  so  the  atonement 
made  by  Christ  was  never  designed  to  affect  the  un- 
changeable God,  but  was  intended  to  cleanse  us  from 
sin,  and  reconcile  us  to  him. 

David  speaking  in  the  person  of  Christ,  says,  "  0  my 
^ouly  thou  hast  said  unto  the  Lord,  Thou  art  my  Lord : 
my  goodness  extendeth  not  to  thee  ;  but  to  the  saints 
that  are  in  the  earth,  and  to  the  excellent,  in  whom  is  all 
my  delight.  If  Christ  by  his  righteousness  in  sufferings 
for|mankind  has  appeased  the  wrath  of  God,  and  recon- 
ciled him  to  sinners,  then  his  righteousness  has  extended 
to  God  in  the  fullest  sense  imaginable.  That  the 
person  of  whom  David  was  here  speaking  is  Christ,  ap- 
pears from  the  succeeding  verse  of  the  same  Psalm, 
where  he  says,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell ; 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thv  holy  one  to  see  corruption." 
Psal.  xvi.  2,  3.  10. 

Christ  makes  an  atonement  for  sinners  by  means  of 
The  gospel.  By  preaching,  working  miracles,  suffer- 
ing, dying,  rising  from  the  dead,  and  conferingthe  Holy 
Spirit  on  his  followers,  he  has  established  that  system 
of  religion,  by  means  of  which  we  may  be  cleansed  from 
our  sins,  and  reconciled  to  God.  Hence  the  apostle 
says,  "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ijshes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  offered 
himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God  1"  Heb.  ix.  13,  14. 
Here  the  contrast  is  drawn  between  the  law  and  tlie 
gospel.  The  atonement  made  under  the  law  sanctified 
to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  but  the  gospel  atonement 
serves  to  purge  the  conscience.  Because  God's  law 
required  the  Jews  to  offer  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  goats, 
it  was  said  of  that  blood  that  it  was  offered  to  God  :  and 
because  God  taught  Christ  by  his  eternal  Spirit  that  it 
was  his  duty  to  suffer  and  die  for  sinners,  it  is  therefore 
said  of  him  that  he  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered 
himself  without  spot  to  God  ;  but  in  neither  of  thes.e 


ATONEMENT.  193 

rases  did  tlie  blood  work  any  change  iii  God  ;  in  the 
former  case  it  purified  the  flesh  of  men,  in  the  latter  it 
purges  their  consciences. 

John  says,  "  If  we  walk  in  the  light  as  he  is  in  the 
light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin."  1 
Joh.  i.  7.  Here  John  clearly  teaches  us  that  our  Chris- 
tian fellowship,  and  cleansing  from  all  sin,  are  only  to 
be  obtained  on  the  condition  that  we  walk  in  the  light  of 
the  gospel.  In  this  text,  John  does  not  tell  us  that  the 
blood  of  Christ  serves  to  reconcile  God,  but  on  the  con- 
frary  he  says  it  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin. 

This  cleansing  from  sin  is  in  the  gospel  called  rege- 
neration, and  can  only  be  effected  by  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  hence  Paul  says,  "  Not  by  works  of 
Wghteousness  that  v,e  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which  he  shed  on  us  abun- 
dantly, through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  Tit.  iii.  5, 
6.  But  as  this  Spirit  is  received  through  faith  in  the 
gospel,  of  course  all  the  atonement,  that  is  to  say,  all  the 
cleansing  from  sin,  and  reconciling  to  God,  that  we  ex- 
perience by  its  operations,  should  be  ascribed  to  the 
fjlood  of  Christ,  because  it  was  by  shedding  his  preciou? 
blood  that  the  gospel  plan  was  established. 

That  the  Spirit  is  received  by  hearing  the  gospel  m 
faith,  appears  from  the  second  and  fifth  verses  of  the 
third  chapter  of  Galations  :  '<  This  only  would  I  learn 
of  you,  received  ye  the  Spirit  oy  the  works  of  the  law, 
or  by  the  hearing  of  faith?"  "  He  therefore  that  minis- 
tereth  to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles  among 
you,  doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hear- 
ing of  faith  ]" 

As  the  atonement  under  the  law  cleansed  the  people 
from  sin  and  pollution,  so  the  means  of  grace  under  the 
g-ospel  are  adapted  to  purify  our  souls  from  iniquity  r 
hence  Peter  says,  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls 
in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned 
love  of  the  brethren,  see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a 
pure  heart  fervently :  being  born  again,  not  of  corrupt- 
ible seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God> 
which  livetTi  ^nd  abideth  forever."     i  Pet.  i.  ^2.  23— 


194  ATONEMENT, 

25.  "  And  tills  is  the  word,  which  by  the  gospel  i~ 
preached  unto  you."  Here  the  apostle  informs  us  that 
the  new  birth  consists  in  purifying  our  souls  by  obeying 
the  truth  through  the  Spirit ;  and  as  this  purifying  is  ef- 
fected by  obeying  the  truth,  he  hence  concludes  that  the 
persons  who  are  thus  purified,  are  born  again  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  then  informs  us  that  this  word  is  the 
gospel. 

This  abundantly  proves  that  the  atonement  of  Christ 
15  accomphshed  in  believers  by  means  of  the  gospel. 

There  is  no  text  in  the  Bible  that  says  God  was  re- 
conciled to  sinners,  but  on  the  contrary  wherever  the 
word  occurs  in  the  scriptures,  it  is  applied  to  the  crea- 
ture. 

The  following  passage  places  the  doctrine  of  recon- 
ciliation in  a  clear  point  of  view.  "  And  all  things  are 
of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  unto  himself  hy  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion ;  to  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself,  not  imputmg  their  trespasses  unto 
them  ;  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconcili- 
ation. Now  then  we  are  ambassadors  for  Christ ;  as 
though  God  did  beseech  you  by  us,  we  pray  you  in 
Christ's  stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God.  For  he  hath 
made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin  ;  that  we 
might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.'^  2 
Cor.  V.  18,  19,  20,  21.  By  being  made  sin  for  us,  the 
apostle  no  doubt  meant  that  he  was  made  a  sin  offering  : 
as  it  is  said  of  him  in  Isaiah  liii.  10.  "  Thou  shalt  make 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin."'  He  was  made  a  sin-offer- 
ing for  the  very  same  purpose  that  the  sacrifices  under 
the  law  were,  that  is,  that  we,  for  whom  he  was  offered^ 
might  be  cleansed  from  sin,  and  made  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  him.  Sin  is  the  sole  cause  of  our  enmity 
against  God,  and  when  we  are  cleansed  from  it,  then  wq 
are  reconciled  to  him. 

In  the  ninth  chapter  of  Hebrews,  Paul  explains  the 
atonement  made  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  by  compar- 
ing it  with  the  atonement,  or  purifying  that  was"made  by 
the  blood  of  the  legal  sacrifices.  He  says,  *'  Almost 
all  things  are  by  the  law  purged  with  blood  ;  and  without 
shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission.   It  was  therefore  iie-» 


ATONEMENT*  195 

ccssary  that  the  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens  should 
be  purified  with  these ;  but  the  heavenly  things  them- 
selves with  better  sacrifices  than  these."  Here  we  are 
clearly  informed  that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  design- 
ed to  purify  the  heavenly  things.  And  if  so,  it  could  not 
have  been  intended  to  purify  God,  nor  his  law,  nor  the 
justice  of  God,  because  they  were  always  holy,  and 
never  could  be  purified.  No  doubt,  the  heavenly  things 
here  spoken  of  are  the  Christians,  whom  God  has  trans- 
lated into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son  ;  and  we  can 
easily  understand  how  Christ  can  purify  them  ;  because 
the  2oth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  says,  *'  But  now 
once  in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared,  to  pu( 
away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself."  And  the  scrip- 
ture says,  "  He  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  re- 
deem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  pe- 
culiar people,  zealous  of  good  works."  Tit.  ii.  14.  If 
Paul  knew  that  Christ  died  to  redeem  us  from  divine 
iiistice,  fulfill  the  law  in  our  room  and  stead,  and  recon- 
cile God  to  us,  and  that  it  is  essential  to  our  salvation 
that  we  should  believe  so,  he  certainly  would  have  told 
lis  these  things  in  plain  words. 

The  great  point  of  dispute  in  this  controversy  is,  whe- 
ther God  or  man  receives  the  atonement  made  by 
Christ.  The  following  passage  decides  this  question  as 
plain  as  it  can  be  done  in  human  speech  :  "  For  if  when 
we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the 
death  of  his  Son,  much  more  being  reconciled,  we  shall 
be  saved  by  his  life. 

And  not  only  so,  but  we  also  joy  in  God,  through  om- 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  now  received  the 
atonement."     Rom.  v.  10,  ]1. 

Thus  it  is  decided  by  the  holy  scripture  that  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  man  receives  the  atonement,  aad  is 
reconciled  to  God. 


i96  0r  CHRIST  FULFILLING  THE  LAW.- 


CHAPTER  II. 


OF    CHRIST    FULFILLING    THE    LAW. 

^  Many  professors  of  religion  say  that  Christ  became 
the  surety  of  sinners,  and  as  such  fulfilled  the  law  of 
God  in  their  room  and  stead,  and  so  redeemed  them 
from  under  the  law. 

I  do  not  think  that  Christ  redeemed  us  from  under 
any  law  of  God.  He  could  not  have  redeemed  us  from 
under  the  ceremonial  law,  because  we  were  never 
under  it.  None  but  the  Jews  were  under  that  law ;  and 
it  was  abolished  long  bef  )re  we  came  into  existence. 

The  moral  law  consists  often  commandments  written 
on  two  tables :  the  first  of  which  teaches  our  duty  to 
God,  and  the  second  teaches  our  duty  to  men.  Christ 
sums  them  all  up  under  two  general  commandments  : 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heai1. 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment. 
And  the  second  is  like  unto  it,  thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself. 

On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets."     Mat.  xxii.  37,  38,  39,  40. 

Now  if  Christ  redeemed  us  from  under  this  law,  he 
has  redeemed  us  from  under  obligation  to  love  God  and 
one  another ;  and  if  he  has  done  so,  he  must  be  the  mi- 
nister of  sin,  and  the  enemy  of  all  righteousness. 

The  moral  law  is  a  copy  of  God's  will  and  a  trans- 
cript of  his  nature  ;  therefore  if  Christ  redeemed  us 
from  under  the  moral  law,  he  has  redeemed  us  from  the 
will  and  nature  of  God.  The  moral  law  is  the  princi- 
ple, yea  the  very  system  of  the  divine  government.  It 
13  that  eternal,  unchangeable  rule  of  righteousness,  by 
which  he  governs  all  his  obedient  rational  creatures. 
And  if  Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  under  it,  he  has  re- 
deemed us  from  under  the  government  of  God  ;  and  ha^ 
done  us  more  injury  than  ever  the  Devil  did.     Th^ 


OP  CHRIST  FULFILLING  THE  LAW.  197 

Devil  has  induced  us  to  rebel  against  the  government 
of  our  heavenly  Father;  but,  thank  God,  he  never  got  u? 
clear  from  under  it. 

Many  good  people  preach  that  God  placed  Adam 
under  an  infinite  law,  the  penalty  of  which  was  also  m- 
finite,  and  consisted  of  a  three  fold  death,  viz :  death 
temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal ;  that  all  his  posterity 
stood  in  him,  and  with  him  fell  under  this  dreadful  pe- 
nalty  :  and  then  they  tell  us  that  Christ,  as  a  surety  foi 
Adam  and  his  posterity,  stepped  into  their  law-place, 
and  by  suffering  all  the  penalty  in  their  room  and  stead, 
made  satisfaction  to  God  and  his  law  for  original  sin.  I 
will  now  give  a  few  reasons  for  not  believing  this  doc- 
trine. 

There  is  no  scripture  to  prove  that  God  gave  Adam 
an  infinite  law.  A  good  and  wise  ruler  will  always 
adapt  his  laws  to  the  capacity  of  his  subjects.  An  infi- 
nite law  must  be  infinite  in  the  number,  or  nature  of  its 
demands,  it  must  require  its  subjects  to  perform  an  in- 
finite number  of  duties,  or  else  it  must  require  them  to 
execute  v.orks  of  an  infinite  nature,  such  as  could  not 
be  done  without  the  exertion  of  infinite  power.  Adam 
was  a  finite  being,  and  therefore  not  able  to  obey,  nor 
even  comprehend  an  infinite  law.  If  a  parent  would 
give  his  little  children  commands  that  they  could  neither 
understand  nor  obey,  and  then  burn  them  to  death  for 
not  fulfilling  them,  he  would  act  the  part  of  an  ignorant, 
cruel  tyrant.  And  if  God  gave  finite  man  an  infinite 
law,  and  then  bound  him  over  to  be  tortured  in  hell  fire 
to  endless  duration  for  not  obeying  it,  he  must  be  just 
such  a  t\Tant, 

It  is  impossible  that  Christ  could  have  suffered  thl« 
three  fold  death  in  the  room  and  stead  of  Adam  and  his 
posterity.  Because  if  he  as  our  surety  had  suffered  a  tem- 
poral death  in  our  room  and  stead,  neither  law  nor  jus- 
tice could  require  us  to  suffer  it  again  ;  yet  we  find  all 
mankind  have  to  suffer  a  temporal  death.  The  best 
Christians,  who  have  the  greatest  interest  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  even  little  infants,  who  never  committed  an 
actual  sin,  have  to  die  a  temporal  death. 

Spiritual  death  is  to  be  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. 
It  is  impossible  for  any  being  to  be  sniritiially  d^*(^ 


i9S  OF    CHRIST    FULFILLING    THE    LAW, 

without  being  wicked;  therefore  if  Christ  suffered  a  spirit- 
ual death,  he  must  have  been  wicked.  But  the  scrip- 
ture says  he  was  holy ;  that  he  did  no  sin,  neither  ivas 
guile  found  in  his  mouth.  So  you  see  it  was  impossi- 
ble for  Christ  to  suffer  a  spiritual  death  for  sinners. 

There  is  nothing  eternal  but  what  is  so  in  duration. 
therefore  if  Christ  suffered  an  eternal  death,  he  must  be 
still  dead,  and  dead  he  must  remain  to  all  eternity,  be- 
cause if  he  ever  should  be  restored  to  life,  he  will  not 
suffer  an  eternal  death.  The  advocates  of  surety 
righteousness  frequently  tell  us  that  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  which  was  due  to  sinners  for  their  actual  and  orig- 
inal sins,  was  damnation  in  hell  to  all  eternity  under 
the  wrath  of  God,  and  then  they  tell  us  that  Christ  hat 
suffered  that  penalty  in  our  stead.  Now  if  this  doctrine 
be  true,  Christ  must  be  damned  in  hell  to  all  eternity 
under  the  wrath  of  God.  But  the  scripture  informs  us. 
that  he  is  happy  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  God. — 
So  you  see  it  is  impossible  that  Christ  could  have  suf- 
fered the  penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  sinners. 

We  will  now  examine  the  law  that  God  gave  to  Adam, 
and  try  to  ascertain  the  sufferings  of  which  its  penalty 
consisted.  "  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man, 
saying,  of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely 
eat :  But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day  that  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Gen.  ii.  16,  17. 
This  does  not  look  like  an  infinite  law.  It  was  a  mere 
prohibition  to  eat  of  a  certain  tree,  which  a  child  of  tea 
years  old  could  understand  and  obey. 

Here  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  there  was  no  pro- 
vision made  in  this  law  for  a  substitute  to  suffer  the 
penalty  of  it  instead  of  the  transgressor.  He  did  not 
say  :  '^  Be  it  remembered,  however,  that  if  a  person  ot 
sufficient  dignity  will  enter  surety  for  you,  and  die  in 
your  stead,  you  shall  not  die,  even  if  you  should  eat  the 
forbidden  fruit."  But  he  said,  without  any  condition  : 
^^  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die  "  The  devil  contradicted  God,  and  told  Eve  that 
if  she  would  eat  the  fruit,  she  should  not  surely  die. — 
The  advocates  of  surety  rightegusness  agree  with  th-r 


or    CHRIST    FULFILLING    THE    LAW.  19-9 

Devil  on  this  subject ;  they  say  that  man  did  not  die  that 
death  of  which  this  penalty  consisted,  but  that  Christ 
stepped  into  their  law-place,  and  suffered  it  in  their  room 
and  stead.  I  now  ask  who  told  the  truth,  God  or  the 
Devil  ?  I  conclude  God  told  the  truth,  the  Devil  told  a 
lie,  and  they  who  agree  with  him  on  that  subject  are 
very  much  mistaken.  But  I  do  not  think  they  lie,  char- 
ity always  makes  a  distinction  between  lies  and  mis- 
takes. 

"When  God  threatened  Adam  with  death,  he  did  not 
tell  what  kind  of  a  death  it  should  be,  but  by  inflicting 
it  on  him,  he  has  pointed  it  out  sufficiently  plain. 

When  a  man  says  to  his  son  :    "  If  you  eat  the  fruit 
of  a  certain  tree  I  will  whip  you,"  the  boy  may  be  at  a 
loss  to  know  what  kind  of  a  whipping  his  father  intends, 
but  when  he  commits  the  crime,  and  gets  the  whipping, 
then  he  knows  to  his  hearts  content.     So  after  our  first 
parents  eat  the  forbidden  fruit,  God  explained  the  kind 
of  death  they  should  die,  by  pronouncing  the  penalty  on 
them  in  the  tollowing  words  :      "Unto  the  woman  he 
said,  I  will  greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  and  thy  concep- 
tion :  in  sorrow  thou  shalt  bring  forth  children,  and  thy 
desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee. 
'  And  unto  Adam  he  said,  because  thou  hast  hearkened 
unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife,  and  hast  eaten  of  the  tree  of 
which  I  commanded  thee,  saying,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of 
it :  cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ;  in  sorrow  shalt 
thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life  :   thorns,  also,  and 
thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee  ;  and  thou  shalt  eat 
the  herb  of  the  field:     In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shalt 
thou  eat  bread  till  thou  return  unto  the  ground  ;  for  out 
of  it  v.ast  thou  taken  :  for  dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust 
shalt  thou  return.-'     Gen.  iii.  16,  17, 18,  19.     Here  is 
all  that  God  said  should  come  on  man  in  consequence 
of  Adams'  sin.     He  died  to  much  of  that  hohness,  and 
happiness  he  possessed  in  his  primordial  state,  was 
made  subject  to  a  temporal  death,  and  liable  to  all  the 
miseries  consequent  on  a  state  of  mortality.    The  earth 
was  cursed  with  thorns  and  thistles  ;  the  woman  had 
her  sorrow  and  conception  greatly  multiplied,  and  was 
doomed  to  bear  her  children  in  pain. 

That  doctrine  which  say?,  that  Christ,  as  the  surefv 


S60  OF   CHRIST   FULFILLING    THE    LAW: 

of  mankind,  suffered  the  penalty  due  for  Adams'  sin  in 
the  room  and  stead  of  him  and  his  posterity,  contradicts 
the  experience  of  every  man  and  woman  in  the  world. 
Every  person  who  has  sense  enough  to  put  on  his 
clothes,  and  wear  them  when  they  are  on,  knows  that 
this  doctrine  is  false.  The  women  bear  their  children 
in  sorrow.  Man  eats  his  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his  face. 
The  earth  brings  forth  thorns  and  thistles  ;  and  we  all 
have  to  return  to  the  dust  in  death. 

If  Jesus  Christ  had  m.ade  satisfaction  to  divine  jus- 
tice, and  borne  the  penalty  of  the  law  that  was  due  to 
Adam  for  his  sin,  a  just  God  would  not  have  required 
him  to  suffer  it  over  again.  Adam  and  his  wife,  on  the 
ground  of  strict  justice,  would  have  remained  in  their 
primitive  state,  their  native  Eden. 

I  think  the  miseries  that  have  come  on  the  world  iu 
consequence  of  Ada(n's  fall,  are  natural  evils,  and  that 
God  never  could  impute  Adam's  sin  to  any  of  his  pos- 
terity, because  they  could  not  help  nhat  Adam  did  be- 
fore they  were  born.  Sin  is  an  act,  it  is  the  trangres- 
sion  of  the  law.  To  impute,  is  to  charge,  and  if  J 
should  be  charged  with  any  action  that  happened  before 
I  was  in  existence,  it  would  be  a  false  charge. 

We  frequently  inherit  weakness  of  body,  or  of  mind, 
from  our  parents.  There  are  many  hereditary  diseas- 
es, such  as  consumption,  &c.  that  descend  from  gener- 
ation to  generation  :  and  it  is  well  known  that  parents 
may  impart  to  their  posterity,  diseases  which  they  have 
contracted  by  crime  :  and  yet  no  guilt  can  be  charged  to 
^he  offspring.  But  in  all  these  cases  if  the  unfortunate 
children  will  faithfully  serve  God,  he  will  no  doubt  bless 
them,  and  make  them  as  happy  in  the  end,  as  if  their 
parents  had  been  healthy  and  holy.  Just  so  I  think  of 
the  evils  that  have  come  on  us  by  Adam's  fall  ;  if  we 
serve  God  faithfully,  they  will  all  work  for  our  good  ; 
and  God  will  make  them  blessings  to  us  in  the  end. 

The  following  passage  sufficiently  proves,  that  Gorl 
never  imputes  the  sins  of  the  parents  to  their  children  : 
"  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The  Son  shalfnot 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  Father,  neither  shall  the  Father 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  Son  ;  the  righteousness  of  the 
righteous  shall  be  upon  liim,  ?ind  the  wickedness  of  the 


op    CHRIST   -FULFaLUTG   THE   LAW.  201 

wicked  shall  be  upon  him."  Ezek.  xviii.  20.  It  is 
certain  that  if  the  law  of  God  did  not  charge  any  guilt 
on  Adam's  posterity  for  his  sin,  then  Christ  could  not 
have  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  to  clear  them 
from  it. 


CHAPTER  III. 


[The  same  subject  continued. 


'■'  The  Lord  is  well  pleased  for  his  righteousness'  sake: 
he  will  magnify  the  law,  and  make  it  honorable."  Isa, 
xlii.  21.  I  have  often  heard  this  text  named  to  prove 
that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  room 
and  stead  of  sinners,  but  it  by  no  means  proves  that 
doctrine.  The  word  mao^iiify  signifies  to  honor.  Paul 
says  :  "  Now,  also,  Christ  shall  be  magnified  in  my 
body,  whether  it  be  by  life,  or  by  death."  Phil.  i.  20. 
"  Mary  said,  my  soul  doth  magnify  the  Lord."  Luk, 
i.  46.  "  And  the  Lord  said  in  to  Joshua,  this  day  will 
I  begin  to  magnify  thee  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel,  that 
they  may  know  that  as  I  was  with  jVI  oses,  so  I  w  ill  be 
with  thee."  Josh.  iii.  7.  "  And  the  liord  magnified 
Solomon  exceedingly,  in  the  sight  of  all  Israel,  and  be- 
stowed upon  him  such  royal  majesty,  as  had  not  been 
on  any  King  before  him  in  Israel."  1  Chron.  xxix.  25. 
David  says  :  "  I  will  praise  the  name  of  God  with  a 
song,  I  will  magnify  him  with  thanksgiving."  Psal. 
Ixix.  30. 

If  a  great  Emperor  should  make  his  son  King  over 
a  nation  of  his  rebelhous  subjects,  the  best  way  for  him 
to  honor  the  laws  of  his  Father,  and  make  them  honora- 
ble among  the  subjects,  would  be  to  obey  them  himself, 
and  use  the  most  effectual  means  to  make  the  people 
obey  them.     But  if  he  should  enter  himself  as  geeurity 


202  OF    CHRIST    FULFILLING    THE    LA\V. 

to  his  Father  for  the  good  behavior  of  all  the  subjects. 
and  agree  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  room 
and  stead  of  its  transgressors,  that  is,  agree  to  be  whip- 
ped,  cropped,  branded,  or  hung,  as  the  case  might  be. 
in  the  room  and  stead  of  every  felon,  who  might  de- 
serve to  be  thus  punished,  it  would  be  the  same  as  to 
repeal  the  law,  because  whenever  subjects  are  assured 
that  they  are  released  from  the  penalty  of  a  law,  they  feel 
no  longer  bound  by  its  precepts.  So  if  Christ  has  re- 
leased sinners  from  the  penalty  of  God's  law  by  suffer- 
ing it  in  their  room  and  stead,  he  has  in  effect  repealed 
the  law  of  God,  and  put  it  out  of  ail  credit ;  because, 
as  soon  as  a  law  is  repealed  it  is  no  longer  honored  by 
the  subjects. 

There  is  not  one  text  in  the  Bible  that  says,  Christ 
fulfilled  the  law  for  us.  But  the  scripture  says,  he  ful- 
fills the  law  in  us.  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his 
own  Son  in  the  hkeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh  :  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  .night  be  fulfilled  IN  US,  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  spirit."  Rom.  viii.  3,  4.  From  this 
text  we  learn  two  things.  First,  that  the  law  of  Moses 
was  too  weak  to  keep  human  nature  under  proper  su- 
bordination to  God  :  and,  secondly,  that  Christ  has 
come  int(^  the  world  to  estaldish  a  religion  by  which 
the  righteousness  of  God's  law  may  be  fulfilled  in  us. 
Jesus  Christ  explains  the  righteousness  of  the  law  to  con- 
sist in  lovino;  God  with  all  our  hearts,  and  our  neiorhbors. 
as  ourselves.  And  Paul  says  :  '•  All  the  law  is  fulfilled 
in  one  word,  even  in  this,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself."  Gal.  v.  14.  And  again  he  informs  us 
that,  *'  The  end  of  the  commandment  is  charity, 
out  of  a  pure  heart,  and  of  a  good  conscience,  and 
of  faith  unfeigned."  1  Tim.  i.  5.  By  the  word 
end,  in  this  text,  he  no  doubt  means  design,  that 
is,  he  means  that  the  design  of  the  commandment 
was  to  promote  charity,  out  of  a  pure  heart,  a  good  con- 
science, and  faith  unfeigned.  But  as  the  diverse  wash- 
ings, and  carnal  ordinances  of  the  first  covenant,  were 
not  sufficient  to  promote  in  the  worshippers  this  pure 
fQYe  to  God  and  men,  thev  were  taken  out  of  the  wav. 


or   C5HRIST   FULriLliNG   THE   LAiV.  203 

in  order  to  establish  the  gospel,  through  which  it  might 
be  implanted  in  the  human  heart. 

With  regard  to  this  change,  Paul  makes  the  following 
statement :  "  But  now  hath  he  obtained  a  more  excel- 
lent ministry,  by  how  much,  also,  he  is  the  Mediator  of 
a  better  covenant,  which  was  established  upon  better 
promises.  For  if  that  first  covenant  had  been  faultless^ 
then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for  the  second. 
For,  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith,  behold,  the  days 
come,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  house  of  Judah  ;  not 
according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  Fa- 
thers, in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  lead 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  because  they  continued 
not  in  my  covenant,  and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith  the 
Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with 
the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord  ;  1 
will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts  ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall 
be  to  me  a  people  :  And  they  shall  not  teach  every 
man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying; 
know  the  Lord  :  for  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least 
to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be  merciful  to  their  un- 
righteousness, and  their  sins,  and  their  iniquities  will  I 
remember  no  more.^'     Heb.  viii.  6 — 12. 

Here  the  Apostle  is  shewing  the  difference  between 
the  old  and  the  new  covenants  ;  betueen  the  ministry 
of  the  law,  and  the  more  excellent  ministry  of  Christ. — 
Lender  the  former,  the  law  was  written  on  tables  of 
stone;  under  the  latter,  he  says:  "I  will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts." — 
Under  the  law,  none  but  the  High  Priest  could  enter  in- 
to the  holiest  of  ail,  have  access  to^he  merc-yseat,  and 
directly  commune  with  the  God  of  Israel ;  and  the  peo- 
ple had  to  get  the  knowledge  of  God  from  him  second- 
handedly,  under  that  dispensation  the  priest  and  the 
prophet  could  have  experimental  knowledge  of  God, 
and  they  had  to  teach  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  his 
brother,  saying,  know  the  Lord.  But  when  Christ  suf- 
fered, the  vail  was  rent,  and  the  way  thrown  open  into 
the  holiest  of  holies,  so  that  the  whole  multitude  might 
have  access  to  the  mercy-seat ;  and  now  under  the  gos- 


204  OP  CliRIgT  TVVeiLUSG  THE  LAW. 

pel  it  is  not  for  the  priests  alone  to  approach  the  merCy" 
seat,  and  get  experimental  knowledge  of  God,  and  then 
teach  that  knowledge  every  one  to  his  neighbor,  and  his 
brother,  but  all  with  whom  the  new  covenant  is  made, 
io  come  to  the  mercy-seat,  that  is  to  the  throne  of 
^ace,  and  each  one  of  them,  from  the  least  to  the  great- 
est, knows  the  Lord  experimentally.  Under  the  fint 
covenant  every  one  that  transgressed,  died  without 
mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses  ;  but  under  the 
second,  he  will  be  merciful  to  our  unrighteousness,  and 
our  sins,  and  iniquities,  he  will  remember  no  more. 

In  the  above  passage  the  apostle  undertakes  to  tell 
the  principal  things  that  are  effected  by  Christ's  minis- 
try, and  if  he  had  known  that  the  main  object  of  it  was 
to  reconcile  God  to  sinners,  and  fulfill  the  law  in  their 
room  and  stead,  and  that  it  is  essential  for  us  to  be- 
live  so,  he  no  doubt  would  have  told  it.  But  he  informs 
us  that  God's  main  object  in  the  new  covenant  was  to 
put  his  laws  into  the  mind,  and  write  them  on  the  hearts 
of  his  people.  When  Christ  writes  this  law  in  our 
hearts,  he  fulfills  it  in  us. 

Man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  but  by  sin  liB 
has,  in  a  moral  sense,  lost  that  image.  The  moral  law 
is  a  transcript  of  God's  moral  image,  and  when  it  is 
written  in  our  hearts,  that  image  is  restored  to  our  souls ; 
we  then  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  know- 
ledge after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him. 

When  this  holy  law  is  written  on  our  hearts,  then, 
perhaps,  is  that  scripture  fulfilled,  that  says,  the  seed  of 
the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  By  the  holy 
law  of  God  the  serpentine  nature  is  destroyed  out  of  our 
hearts. 

"VMien  this  law  is  written  in  our  hearts,  then  is  ful- 
filled that  scripture,  which  says,  "  Mercy  and  truth  are 
met  together  ;  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other.''^  Psal.  Ixxxv.  10.  Mercy  and  truth,  and  right- 
eousness and  peace  are  attributes  of  God  ;  and  the 
question  arises,  '*  where  have  they  met  ?"  but  another 
question  arises,  where  were  they  parted  ?  They  never* 
were  parted  in  God,  he  never  lost  righteousness  and 
peace,  and  became  wicked  and  unhappy,  nor  did  he  ever 
Become  cruel  and  false  by  losing  mercy  and  'tnjM- 


OF    CHRIST    FULFILLING    THE    LAW.  205 

>Iercy  and  truth,  righteousness  and  peace  were  promi- 
nent features  of  the  human  mind  in  its  pritnordial  state. 
By  sin,  man  lost  mercy,  and  became  cruel;  he  lost  truth, 
and  became  ignorant  and  deceptive  ;  he  lost  righteous- 
ness and'peace,  and  so  became  wicked  and  unhappy* 
But  when  the  law  of  God,  which  is  a  transcript  of  his 
nature,  is  written  on  the  heart  of  man,  it  restores  to  his 
mind  these  heavenly  features  ;  then  mercy  and  truth 
have  met  together,  and  righteousness  and  peace  have 
kissed  each  other  in  the  new  born  souls.  The  man  re- 
ceives mercy  from  his  God,  and  becomes  merciful  to 
all  around  him  ;  the  truth  which  makes  him  free  is  im- 
planted in  his  heart,  and  it  disposes  him  to  speak  no- 
thing but  the  truth  with  his  neighbors. 

Righteousness  and  peace  being  implanted  in  his  soul, 
liis  heart  is  divorced  from  sin,  and  his  mind  from  dis- 
quietude. And  in  him  is  fulfilled  the  scripture,  that 
says,  "  Then  I  restored  that  which  I  took  not  away.'^ 
Christ  did  not  take  from  man  these  heavenly  qualities, 
he  lost  them  by  sin,  and  they  are  restored  to  him  by  the 
Saviour.  And  now  he  experiences  the  truth  of  David's 
song,  which  says,  "  Great  peace  have  they  which 
love  thy  law  :  and  nothing  shall  offend  them." 


18 


20^  OF   SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


CHAPTER   IV. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS   CONSlDEREt>, 

The  ministers  of  the  most  popular  denominations  in 
the  present  day,  preach  that  Christ  is  the  surety  of  sin- 
ners, that  he  made  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  them, 
fulfilled  the  law  for  them,  answering  all  its  demands,  in 
their  room  and  stead,  and  by  bearing  the  wrath  of  God 
that  was  due  to  sinners,  reconciled  him  to  them. 

I  think  this  doctrine  contradicts  the  experience  of 
every  Christian  in  the  world. 

In  order  to  place  this  subject  in  a  clear  point  of  view, 
I  will  ask  the  reader  a  few  plain  questions. 

Before  you  felt  the  comforts  of  religion  did  you  not 
feel  some  severe  conviction,  or  distress  of  mind,  on 
account  of  your  sins  ]  Do  you  not  think  you  were 
laid  under  these  convictions  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of 
God?  When  you  were  under  convinction  did  you  not 
think  and  feel  that  divine  justice  condemned  you  ?  Did 
you  not  think  and  feel  that  the  law  of  God  condemned 
you  ?  Did  you  not  feel  that  God  was  angry  with  youj 
and  that  you  were  in  danger  of  going  to  hell  for  your 
sins  ?  To  all  these  questions  I  know  you  will  answer 
in  the  affirmative. 

Now  you  can  easily  see  that  if  the  above  doctrine  be 
true,  all  your  conviction  was  a  mistake,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness,  the  law  nor  justice 
of  God  had  nothing  against  you  ;  your  surety  had  made 
satisfaction  to  the  one,  and  fulfilled  the  other  in  your 
room  and  stead  ;  God  had  poured  out  all  the  wrath 
that  was  due  to  you,  on  his  Son,  and  could  not  possibly 
be  angry  with  you,  but  was  perfectly  reconciled  to  you. 
If  you  act  consistently,  you  must  renounce  your 
Christian  experience,  or  else  renounce  surety  right- 
eousness ;  they  are  in  direct  opposition  to'each  other, 
and  therefore  not  both  cannot  be  true. 

I  will  now  make  a  small  comparison  to  illustrate  the 
sitbject.     Suppose  I  owe  you  a  thousand  doUajrg.  f^S;' 


OF   SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  2Q* 

tne  payment  of  which  my  neighbor  stands  security  ; 
and  suppose  you,  at  a  time  when  1  am  absent  from  the 
country,  sue  my  security,  and  obhge  him  to  pay  the 
whole  debt,  principal,  interest,  and  cost,  according  to 
the  strict  letter  of  the  law  ;  then,  after  acknowledging 
that  you  were  fully  satisfied,  and  well  pleased  with  the 
payment,  would  it  be  right  for  you  to  demand  of  me  to 
pay  you  that  debt  over  again  ?  Or  could  you  collect  it 
of  me  by  law?  And  if  you  would  send  your  agent,  or 
come  to  me  yourself,  and  tell  nie  that  I  still  owe  you 
that  whole  debt,  on  account  of  which  you  are  much  dis- 
satisfied with  me,  and  also  tell  me  that  I  am  in  dancrer 
of  the  severest  punishment  for  not  paying  you,  would  it 
not  be  false  ?  And  if  I  should  believe  that  I  still  owe 
you  the  debt,  would  I  not  believe  a  lalsehood  ? 

If  Jesus  Christ,  as  our  surety,  has  paid  to  law  and 
justice,  our  debt  of  (obedience  and  of  suffering,  and 
also  reconciled  God  to  us,  surely  the  God  of  truth 
w^ouid  not  send  his  agent,  the  Spnit  of  truth,  to  tell  us 
that  we  owe  the  whole  debt  yet,  and  that  he  is  very  an- 
gry with  us  for  our  delinquency. 

The  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness  teaches,  that 
either  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  or  else  imme- 
diately after  Adam  fell,  there  was  a  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion made  between  the  Father  and  the  S<  n.  in  which 
the  Son  entered  into  recognisance  to  the  Father  to  an- 
swer all  the  demands  of  law  and  justice,  which  then 
were,  or  ever  would  be,  against  Adam  and  his  posterity  ; 
and  that  pursuant  to  this  engagement,  he,  in  the  fulness 
of  time,  came  into  the  world,  was  made  of  a  wonrittn, 
made  under  the  law,  and  by  obeying  it>  precepts,  and 
suffering  on  the  cross,  made  full  satisfaction  for  sin, 
reconciled  God  to  sinners,  and  for  them  paid  up  all  the 
debt  of  obedience,  and  of  suffering  that  law  and  justice 
could  demand. 

The  advocates  of  surety  righteousness,  however,  dif- 
fer among  themselves  on  the  extent  of  this  satisfaction, 
some  say  he  paid  the  debt  for  all,  while  others  say  he 
only  paid  it  for  a  part,  to  wit,  the  elect. 

Now  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  either  as  it  respects  the 
whole,  or  a  part  of  mankind,  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
prophets  and  apostles  must  have  all  been  false  teach- 


208  OF   SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

crs,  because  they  all  testify  that  the  law  of  God  coil" 
dems  sinners  ;  that  God  is  angry  with  the  \vicked  even 
day  ;  Paul  says  :  *'  The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from 
heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of 
men,  who  hold  the  tmth  in  unrighteousness."  And 
that  God  will  recompense  indignation  and  wrath,  tri- 
bulation and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth 
evil.  Rom.  i.  18.  Chap.  ii.  9.  Christ  says  :  "  He 
that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the 
-wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  Joh.  iii.  36.  The 
wrath  of  God  is  upon  the  children  of  disobedience. — 
Ephes.  V.  6.  Col.  iii.  6.  Paul  says,  that  he  and  his 
Ephesian  brethren  were  children  of  wrath  even  as  oth- 
ers. Ephes.  ii.  3,  If  Christ  had  borne  the  wrath  of 
God  for,  and  reconciled  him  to,  every  person,  that  ever 
did,  or  ever  will  get  to  heaven,  hov»'  could  Paul  and  his 
brethren  have  ever  been  children  of  wrath  even  as , 
others  ? 

If  the  main  object  of  Christ's  errand  into  the  world 
was  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God,  and  reconcile  him  to 
sinners,  why  did  he  not  tell  it  when  he  undertook  to  tell 
what  he  came  into  the  world  to  do  ?  He  says  to  Pilate. 
'•  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into 
the  world, that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth."  Jjh. 
xviii.  37.  When  the  teachers  of  surety  righteousness 
undertake  to  tell  what  the  Saviour  came  to  do,  theii 
conscience  obliges  them  to  say  that  he  came  to  appease 
the  wrath  of  God,  or  make  satisfaction  to  law,  and  jus- . 
tice  for  sinners. 

When  a  witness  is  legally  called  on  to  give  testimony. 
he  is  bound  by  law,  and  every  principle  of  righteous- 
ness,  to  tell  the  truth,  and  the  ivhole  truth,  and  if  he 
should  keep  any  truth  back,  which  he  knows  is  essen- 
tial to  the  case,  he  becomes  a  false  witness  to  all  intents 
and  purposes.  So,  if  Christ  knew  that  an  essential 
point  to  be  gained  by  his  sufferings  was  to  reconcile 
God  to  sinners,  and  purchase  salvation  for  them,  and 
also  knew  that  for  them  to  believe  so  was  essential  to 
their  salvation,  he  could  not  keep  it  back  without  being 
a  false  witness. 

If  Christ  knew  that  he  stood  bound  to  bear  the  wrath 
of  God  instead  of  sinners,  in  consequence  of  which  God 


OF   SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  20^9 

was  reconciled  to  them,  why  did  he  say  of  the  unbeliev- 
er, that  the  ivraih  of  God  abideth  on  him  1  Thousands 
(hat  were  unbelievers  at  the  time  Christ  spoke  these 
words,  afterwards  became  believers,  and  were  no  doubt 
saved.  If  all  the  wrath  of  God  that  was  due  to  them 
had  been  turned  on  Christ,  who  had  undertaken  to  bear 
it  instead  of  them,  how  could  it  be  on  them  ?  And  if 
the  wrath  of  God  falls  on  the  sinners,  and  their  surety 
both,  what  good  does  the  sureti.^hip  do? 

Just  before  Christ  departed  out  of  this  world,  he  told 
his  disciples  why  it  was  expedient  for  him  to  leave 
them,  that  is,  why  it  was  expedient  for  liim  to  die. — 
*'  ]\evertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth  ;  it  is  expedient  for 
you,  that  I  go  away  :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Com- 
forter will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will 
send  him  unto  you."  Joh.  xvi.  7.  If  his  main  object 
in  dying  was  to  make  satisfaction  to  the  law,  why  did  he 
not  tell  it  1 

After  his  resurrection  he  appeared  to  his  disciples 
and  plainly  told  them  why  it  was  necessary  for  him  to 
die.  "  Then  opened  he  their  understandings,  that  they 
might  understand  the  scriptures,  and  said  unto  them, 
thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behoved  Christ  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day  :  and  that  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
liis  name  among  all  nations  beginning  at  Jerusalem.'- 
Luk.  xxiv.  45,  46,  47.  In  the  next  verse  he  adds  : 
^^  And  ye  are  my  witnesses  of  these  things." 

Now  if  he  wanted  those  witnesses  to  testify,  that  it 
behoved  him  to  die,  in  order  to  appease  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  make  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice  for  sin- 
ners, why  did  he  not  tell  them  so  ?  Rut  instead  of  say* 
ing  that  he  suffered  to  purchase  their  justification,  he 
told  them  that  the  design  of  his  sufferings  was,  thai 
^^remission  of  sins  should  he  preached  in  his  name  among 
all  nations."  Remission  or  forgiveness  is  always  op- 
posed to  purchase  and  pay. 
IS* 


210  or    SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS- 


CHAPTER  V. 


{7'he  same  subject  continued. 


"  By  so  m\ich  was  Jesus  made  a  surety  of  a  bettei 
testament."  Heb.  vii.  22.  This  text  has  often  been 
brought  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness. 
But  there  is,  perhaps,  no  text  in  the  Bible  farther  from 
it.  The  better  testament  is  the  gospel,  and  of  this. 
Christ  is  the  surety.  There  is  a  great  difference  be- 
tween being  surety  for  the  gospel,  and  being  surety  for 
sinners.  A  surety  to  a  bond  always  stands  bound  with 
the  party  that  gives  the  bond.  The  gospel  was  given 
by  God  to  sinners,  and  Jesus,  as  its  surety,  stands 
bound  for  the  faithful  performance  of  all  its  promises. 
Hence,  Paul  says  :  "  Now  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
a  minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God  to 
confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  Fathers."  Rom. 
XV.  8.  As  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of 
God,  Jesus  came  to  fulfill,  and  by  fulfilling,  to  confirm 
the  many  great  and  precious  promises  made  by  the 
prophets  to  the  Fathers,  relative  to  the  coming  of 
Christ,  and  the  gloiy  that  should  follow. 

The  122nd  verse  of  the  119tli  Psalm  has  been  press- 
ed into  the  service  of  surety  righteousness.  "  Be 
surety  for  thy  servant  for  good  :  let  not  the  proud  oppress 
me."  This  text  by  no  means  proves  that  Christ  stands 
as  surety  to  God  for  the  good  behavior  of  sinners,  be- 
cause it  cannot  be  proved,  nor  is  it  at  all  probable,  that 
David  was  in  this  text  praying  to  Christ:  and  if  he  was 
asking  the  Father  to  be  his  surety  for  good,  that  does  not 
prove  that  Christ  is  the  surety  of  sinners.  If  in  this 
text  Da\ud  was  praying  to  Chi-ist  to  be  his  surety,  in 
order  to  screen  him  from  the  wrath  of  God,  he  must 
have  regarded  God  as  a  proud  oppressor  ;  because  he 
says  :  "Be  surety  for  thy  servant  for  good  ;  let  not  the 
proud  oppress  me."  It  is  evident  that  he  was  only 
waving  to  God  to  secure  him  against  his  proud  ene- 


OF    SURETY    RIGIITEOrsXESS.  211 

mies,  ^vuo  "were  trying  to  oppress  him.  In  the  next 
verse  before  this.  David  pleads  his  own  righteousnesss 
as  a  reason  why  God  should  be  his  surety  :  he  says. 
"  I  have  done  judgement  and  justice  ;  leave  me  not  to 
mine  oppressors.  Be  surety  for  thy  servant  ;  let  not 
the  proud  oppress  me."  If  he  had  spoken  in  accor- 
dance with  the  modern  system  of  surety  righteousness, 
he  would  probably  have  said  :  "  I  have  been  guilty  of 
fraud  and  injustice,  therefore  be  my  surety,  and  pre- 
serve me  from  that  wrath  and  punishment  of  the  Al- 
mighty, which  I  justly  deserve." 

"  The  advocates  of  surety  righteousness  teach,  that 
Christ  purchased  the  fa\or  of  God,  and  that  the  grace, 
which  comes  to  us  in  the  gospel,  was  purchased  from 
God,  and  paid  for  by  Christ  when  he  suffered  on  the 
cross.  This  doctrine  is  incorrect,  because  God  never 
was  an  unmerciful,  unforgiving  Being.  The  writings 
of  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  all  repre- 
sent him  as  a  raercilul  God,  that  could  forgive  sin 
without  being  paid  for  it. 

Ezekiel  teaches  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  on  the 
sole  condition  of  reformation.  "  But  if  the  wicked  will 
turn  from  all  his  sins  that  he  hath  committed,  and  keep 
all  my  statutes,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,, 
he  shall  surely  live,  he  shall  not  die.  All  his  transgres- 
sions that  he  haih  committed,  they  shall  not  be  men- 
tioned unto  him  :  in  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done 
he  shall  live."  Ezek.  xviii.  21,  22.  Here  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  a  substitute  suffering  instead  of  the 
.sinner. 

In  the  following  text,  God  shows  on  v,hat  account  he 
will  forgive  sin  :  "  For  my  name's  sake  will  I  defer 
mine  anger,  and  for  my  praise  will  I  refrain  for  thee, 
that  I  cut  thee  not  off."  "  For  mine  own  sake,  even 
for  mine  own  sake,  will  I  do  H  :  for  hovv-  should  m} 
name  be  polluted  ?  and  I  will  not  give  my  glory  unto 
another."  Isa.  xlviii.  9.  11.  If  God  never  forgives 
sin,  nor  dcfels  his  anger  only  for  the  sake  of  Jesus 
Christ,  this  text  is  false.  The  reason  he  assigns  why 
he  will  defer  his  anger  and  forgive  sin  for  his  own  sake 
alone, is,  because  he  will  not  give  his  glory  unto  another. 
If  he  never  forgives  sin  but  always  takes  vengeance  on 


2lS  OF    SURETY  RIGHTEOUSNESS^ 

the  sinner,  or  his  surety  instead  of  him,  he  could  not  be 
glorified  for  pardoning  sinners;  all  the  glory  would  be 
given  to  the  surety. 

When  the  legal  sacrifices  proved  insufficient  to  pro- 
cure the  favor  and  mercy  of  God,  the  Jews  were  not 
informed  that  he  would  be  propitiated,  and  his  blessings 
obtained  from  them  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  but  good 
works  were  recommended,  as  the  only  means  to  obtain 
his  favor  and  blessings.  This  is  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  following  passage  :  "  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  ; 
incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me  ;  the  new  Moons, 
and  Sabbaths,  the  caUing  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away 
with  :  it  is  iniquity  even  the  solemn  meeting.  Your  new 
Moons  and  your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth  ;  they 
are  a  trouble  unto  me  ;  I  am  weary  to  bear  them.  And 
when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes 
from  you  ;  yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I  will  not 
hear  :  your  hands  are  full  of  blood. 

Wash  you,  make  you  clean  ;  put  away  the  evil  of  your 
doings  from  before  mine  eyes  ;  cease  to  do  evil  ;  learn 
to  do  well;  seek  judgement,  relieve  the  oppressed: 
judge  the  fatherless  ;  plead  for  the  widow.  Come  now 
and  let  us  reason  together  saith  the  Lord  :  though  your 
sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow: 
though  they  be  red  like  crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool. 
If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of 
the  land  :  but  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be  devoured 
with  the  sword  :  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken 
it.''     Isa.  i.  13—20. 

If  the  surety  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  means 
of  obtaining  God's  favor  and  blessings,  he  told  the  Jews 
wrong  in  the  above  passage,  because  he  tells  them  that 
good  works  will  do  it. 

Solomon  taught  that  the  favor  of  God  is  obtained  on 
the  condition  of  obedience  and  good  works.  He  says, 
"  Turn  you  at  my  reproof;  behold,  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  unto  you,  I  will  make  known  ray  words  unto  you.^' 
Prov.  i.  23.  ^'  The  backslider  in  heart  shall  be  filled 
with  his  own  ways  ;  and  a  good  man  shall  be  satisfied 
from  himself."  Chap.  xiv.  14.  "  He  that  covereth  his 
sins  shall  not  prosper  :  but  whoso  confesseth  and  for^ 
jssdieth  them  shall  have  mercy."    Chap,  xxviii.  13.    Ti^ 


CiF   SURETY  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  213 

wise  man  does  not  tell  us  that  the  mercy  of  God  is  con- 
ferred on  us  because  it  was  purchased  for  us  by  Christ. 
David  says,  "  The  Lord  is  merciful  and  gracious,  slow 
to  anger,  and  plenteous  in  mercy.  He  will  not  always 
chide  ;  neither  will  he  keep  his  anger  forever."  Psal. 
ciii.  8,  9.  If  David  had  believed  that  the  Lord  never 
would  forgive  at  all,  but  would  for  eveiy  crime  wreak 
his  vengeance,  either  on  the  transgressor,  or  else  on 
Christ  instead  of  him,  he  surely  would  not  have  written 
these  lines. 

The  following  passage  shows  that  David  had  no  idea 
of  surety  righteousness  :  "  The  Lord  rewarded  me  ac- 
cording to  my  righteousness  :  according  to  the  clean- 
ness of  my  hands  hath  he  recompensed  me.  For  I 
have  kept  the  ways  o^  the  Lord,  and  have  not  wickedly 
departed  from  my  God.  For  all  his  judgements  were 
before  me  .  and  as  for  his  statutes,  I  did  not  depart  from 
them.  I  was  also  upright  before  him,  and  have  kept 
myself  from  mine  iniquity. 

Therefore  the  Lord  hath  recompensed  me  according 
to  my  righteousness  ;  according  to  my  cleanness  in  his 
eye-sight.  With  the  merciful  thou  wilt  show  thy- 
self merciful,  and  with  the  upright  man  thou  wilt  show 
thyself  upright.  With  the  pure  thou  wilt  show  thyself 
pure  ;  and  with  the  froward  thou  wilt  show  thyself  unsa- 
vory." 2  Sam.  xxii.  21 — 27.  No  man  that  believes 
in  imputed  righteousness,  and  has  a  strict  regard  to 
truth,  can  use  such  language  as  this.  The  believers  in 
imputed  righteousness  dare  not  say  that  God  blesses 
them  according  to  their  righteousness  and  cleanness  in 
his  sight,  because  they  think  all  their  blessings  come 
through  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

lu  the  fifteenth  Psalm,  David  shows  what  sort  of 
righteousness  is  necessary  to  save  the  soul.  He  asks 
the  question,  "  Lord  who  shall  abide  in  thy  tabernacle  t 
who  shall  dwell  in  thy  holy  hill.  He  then  gives  the  an- 
swer in  the  following  language  :  "  He  that  walketh  up- 
rightly, and  worketh  righteousness,  and  speaketh  the 
truth  in  his  heart.  He  that  backbiteth  not  vrith  his 
tongue,  nor  doeth  evil  to  his  neighbor,  nor  taketh  up  a 
reproach  against  his  neighbor,"  &c.  Here  the  Psalm- 
ist does  not  mention  surety  righteousness  as  the  essen 


214  OF   SURETY  RIGHTEOUSNESSt 

tial  means  of  salvation.  He  does  not  say  that  a  satis- 
faction made  by  Christ  to  law  and  justice  in  the  room 
and  stead  of  sinners,  is  the  real  cause  why  any  person 
shall  be  saved,  !)ut  he  ascribes  their  salvation  to  inno- 
cence and  good  works. 

In  the  third  and  fourth  verses  of  the  24th  Psalm,  he 
asks  and  answer-  the  same  question  :  *'  AVho  shall  as- 
cend into  the  hill  of  the  Lord  i  and  who  shall  stand  in 
his  holy  place  1  He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure 
heart;  who  hath  not  lifted  up  his  soul  unto  vanity,  nor 
sworn  deceitfully.-'  He  does  not  say,  he  to  whom  the 
righteousnes.-s  of  Christ  i.  imputed. 

David  informs  iis  that  it  is  not  by  sacrifice,  but  by 
repentance  and  siucerity  that  the  favor  of  God  is  ob- 
tained. "  For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I 
give  it;  thou  delightest  not  in  burnt-offermg.  The  sa- 
crifices of  God  are  a  broken  spirit  :  a  broken  and  a  con- 
trite heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise."  Psal.  h. 
16,  17. 

There  never  was  any  need  of  reconciling  God,  or 
purchasing  his  favor,  -ecause  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Bible  he  has  revealed  himself  to  man  as  a  merciful  God. 

"  And  the  Lord  passed  by  before  him,  and  proclaim- 
ed, the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long 
suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping 
mercy  for  th  )usands,  tbrgiviug  iniquity,  and  transgres- 
sion and  sin,  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty.'' 
Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  7.  Chap.  xx.  6.  God  was  repre- 
sented to  the  Jews  as  dwelhng  on  the  mercy-seat,  by 
which  he  manifested  himself  to  be  a  God  of  mercy, 
•'  The  faithful  God,  uhich  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy 
with  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  commandments  to 
a  thousand  generations."     Dent.  vii.  9. 

God  did  not  authorise  Mo-es  to  tell  the  Jews  that 
his  favor  would  be  conferred  on  them  in  consequence 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  he  told  him  to  inform 
them  that  it  depended  entirely  on  their  own  obedience. 
"  Now  therefore  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and 
keep  my  covenant,  then'ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure 
unto  me  above  all  people  :  for  all  the  earth  is  mine. 
And  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a 


OF   StJEETY  RICTHTEOUSJfESS^.  213 

holy  nation.     These  are  the  words  which  thou  shait 
speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel."     Exod.  xix.  5,  6. 

God  told  the  Jews  that  if  they  should  disobey  him,  he 
would  curse  them,  sell  them  into  the  hands  of  their  ene- 
mies, and  disperse  them  among  the  nations  :  but  if  they 
would  return  to  the  Lord  with  all  their  hearts  and  souls, 
that  then  the  Lord  their  God  would  turn  their  captivity, 
and  have  compassion  upon  them,  and  would  return  and 
gather  them  from  all  the  nations,  whither  the  Lord  their 
God  iiad  scattered  them,  Deut.  xxx.  1,  2,  3.  Here 
he  gives  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  his  compassion 
towards  them  depended  on  the  righteousness  of  a  surety, 
but  told  them  plainly  th;it  it  was  altogether  owing  to 
their  own  conduct.  In  the  tbllowing  text  God  taught 
them  the  same  doctrine.  Atler  telling  them  that  they 
should  be  dispersed  among  the  nations  for  their  sins,  he 
says,  "  But  if  from  thence  thou  shalt  seek  the  Lord  thy 
God,  thou  shalt  find  him,  if  thou  seek  him  with  all  thy 
heart  and  with  ail  thy  soul."  "  For  the  Lord  thy  God 
is  a  merciful  God  ;"  Deut.  iv.  29.  3L  Here  he  tells 
them  that  the  mercy  of  God  is  the  cause  of  their  salva- 
tion, and  that  seeking  him  with  all  their  heart  and  soul, 
was  the  only  condition  on  which  they  could  receive  it. 
He  did  not  tell  them  that  a  satisfaction  made  to  God  by 
Jesus  Christ,  was  the  cause,  and  faith  in  that  satisfac- 
tion the  condition  of  their  salvation. 

Enoch  was  translated  for  being  righteous.  Gen.  y. 
24.  Noah  was  saved  because  he  was  righteous. 
"  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Noah,  come  thou  and  all  thy 
house  into  the  ark  :  for  thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before 
me  in  this  generation."  Gen.  vii.  1.  God  did  not  tell 
Noah  that  he  and  his  family  should  be  saved  because  he 
had  imputed  the  righteousness  of  the  Messiah  to  them. 
But  if  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  was  the  real 
cause  of  their  salvation,  the  God  of  truth  told  Noah  a 
falsehood,  for  he  never  mentioned  the  Messiah's  right- 
eousness, but  told  Noah  that  he  should  be  saved  be- 
cause that  he  was  righteous  himself. 

God  blessed  Abraham  because  he  was  obedient. 
■^By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord  ;  for  because 
thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy 
iion,  thine  only  Son ;  that  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee. 


216  OF    SURETY  RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

and  in  multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  start 
of  the  heaven,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  upon  the  sea- 
shore ;  and  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  ene- 
mies :  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  blessed  ;  because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice."  Gen. 
xxii.  16,  17,  18. 

This  proves  as  clear  as  noon  day  that  God  blesses 
his  people  because  they  are  obedient,  and  holy  ;  and  not 
because  some  other  person  is  obedient  and  holy  instead 
of  them. 

Moses  said  he  had  set  life  and  death  before  the 
Jews :  but  if  life  and  the  favor  of  God  are  only  conferred 
on  account  of  Christ's  righteousness,  Moses  never 
taught  them  the  way  of  hfe.  He  never  told  them  that 
the  mercy,  and  favor  of  God  would  be  given  them  for 
the  sake  of  Christ ;  but  he  always  pointed  to  the  mercy 
of  God  as  the  cause  of  divine  favor,  and  their  obedience, 
as  the  only  condition  on  which  they  should  receive  it. 

When  Daniel  prayed  for  the  Jews  under  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity,  he  plead  nothing  but  the  mercy  of  God 
as  a  ground  of  forgiveness.  He  said,  "  We  do  not 
present  our  supplications  before  thee  for  our  righteous- 
iiess  but  for  thy  great  mercies.  O  Lord,  hear ;  0  Lord, 
forgive  ;  O  Lord,  hearken  and  do  ;  defer  not,  for  thine 
own  sake,  0  my  God  :  for  thy  city  and  thy  people  are 
called  by  thy  name."  Dan.  ix.  18,  19.  If  Daniel  had 
known  that  Christ  had  reconciled  God  to  the  Jews,  and 
purchased  his  favor  tor  them  by  entering  into  a  covenant 
with  God  to  make  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice  in  their 
stead,  he  no  doubt,  would  have  availed  himself  of  that 
plea. 

If  the  prophets  and  apostles  did  know  that  Christ 
purchased  the  grace  of  God,  and  that  every  blessing 
that  men  receive  from  God  is  on  account  of  his  sureti- 
ship,  why'did  they  not  refer  to  it  in  their  prayers  ?  and 
make  it  a  plea  at  the  throne  of  grace  1  The  men  who 
believe  in  surety-righteousness  in  the  present  day,  are 
compelled  by  their  conscience  to  ask  of  God  every 
blessing  for  Christ  sake. 

The  Roman  Catholics  believe  that  they  receive  many 
blessings  by  means  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  therefore 
frequently  pray  to  her  to  intercede  for  them. 


OF    SURETY  RIGHTEOUSXESSi  217 

^rhei'e  is  no  account  in  scripture  of  any  of  the  pro- 
',jhets  or  apostles  asking  any  blessing  for  Christ^s  sake. 
But  if  they  knew  that  all  blessings  were  purchased  by 
Christ,  and  are  conferred  for  his  sake,  honesty  and 
piety  would  have  constrained  them  to  teach  it  to  their 
hearers,  and  acknowledge  it  to  their  God. 

Ephes.  iv.  32,  has  been  brought  to  prove  that  God 
forgives  sin  for  Christ's  sake.  "  And  be  ye  kind  one 
to  another,  tender-hearted,  forgiving  one  another,  even 
as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you."  This  text 
is  wrong  translated,  the  Greek  enchristt\  which  is  here 
rendered  ybr  Clirisfs  sake,  is  in  every  other  place  in  the 
N^ew  Testament  rendered  in  Christ.  If  this  rendering 
is  to  be  understood  according  to  the  common  system  of 
surety  righteousness,  it  destroys  the  doctrine  of  forgive- 
ness altogether.  Surety  righteousness  teaches  that 
God  poured  out  his  wrath  on  his  Son  in  our  room  and 
stead,  in  consequence  of  which  he  forgives  us,  so  ac- 
rordin;;  to  this  doctrine  we  must  never  forgive  our  bro- 
ther till  we  take  vengeance  on  s-ome  innocent  person 
instead  of  him.  If  this  is  the  way  God  forgives,  and  it 
we  must  imitate  him,  then  we  must  never  forgive  our 
guilty  enemies  till  we  wreak  our  vengeance  on  some 
one  of  our  innocent  friends,  that  is,  on  a  beloved  son,  if 
v,€  have  one. 

I  now  ask,  is  it  possible  that  such  conduct  would  be 
:?leasing  to  God  ?  Then  let  us  not  charge  him  v.ith  it, 

19 


318  J3IPUTED    RIGHTEOUSXESr 


CHAPTER  YI, 


ox    IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 


Imputed  righteousness,  and  surety  righteousness  are 
uearly  the  same.  If  Christ,  as  our  surety,  was  righte^ 
ous  instead  of  us,  then  God  will  account,  or  impute  that 
righteousness  to  us. 

The  righteousness  of  Christ  consisted  in  his  righteou? 
disposition,  and  his  righteous  acts  :  he  was  holy,  harm- 
less, undetiled  and  separate  from  sinners.  JVow  if  God 
should  impute  that  character  to  any  sinner  in  the  world, 
it  would  be  a  false  imputation.  It  would  be  the  same 
as  to  say,  a  very  unholy,  mischievous,  corrupt  person. 
IS  holy,  harmless,  undetiled,  and  separate  from  sinners. 
To  impute  the  temper  of  the  gentlest  lamb  to  the  most 
ferocious  tiger,  would  not  be  more  false.  To  impute 
ihe  color  of  the  whitest  man  in  Europe  to  the  blackest 
one  in  Africa,  would  not  be  farther  from  the  truth. 
Christ's  righteousness  consists  in  the  sum  of  his  right- 
eous deeds.  He  preached,  \n-ought  miracles,  and  died 
for  the  salvation  of  m.en.  Now,  if  all  this  was  imputed 
to  a  sinner  born  in  the  eighteenth  century,  would  it  be 
true  ?  Could  it  be  said  in  truth  that  any  one  of  us  per- 
tbrmed  those  miracles,  and  died  on  the  cross  ?  Again, 
if  these  righteous  doings  of  the  Saviour  were  imputed 
10  us,  what  good  would  it  do  us  1  Holiness  is  moral 
health,  and  unholiness  is  moral  disease  ;  and  it  would 
do  no  more  good  to  impute  the  holiness  of  one  person 
to  another,  than  it  would  to  impute  the  health  of  one 
person  to  another. 

Christ  represents  himself  as  a  physician  ;  hence  he  say^, 
**  They  that  are  whole  need  not  a  physician  ;  but  they 
that  are  sick.  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sin- 
ners to  repentance."  Luk.  v.  31.  32.  Mat.  ix.  12. 
\Now  if  we  should  be  sick,  and  send  for  a  physician, 
what  would  we  want  of  him  ?  would  we  want  him  to  be 
a  weil  man  in  our  stead  1  o?  would  we  want  him  to 


l!uPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  215 

nppiy  his  means  and  make  us  weH  1  If*  all  the  men  on 
■earth,  and  God  himself  should  impute  the  well  man's 
health  to  me,  it  would  do  me  no  good. 

Heaven  is  holy,  and  God  has  said,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for 
I  am  holy."  1  Pet.  i.  16.  Levit.  xi.  44.  And  again 
he  has  said,  "  Follow  peace  with  all  men,  and  holiness, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  Heb.  xii. 
14.  If  then  we  cannot  see  God  without  we  are  holy 
ourselves,  what  good  would  it  do  us  to  account,  or  im- 
pute the  holiness  of  some  other  person  to  us  ? 

Christ  did  not  come  to  be  righteous  instead  of  us,  but 
he  came  to  make  us  righteous  :  hence  the  Angel  said 
to  Joseph,  "  Thou  shalt  call  his  name  JESUS,  for  he 
shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins.     Mat.  i.  21. 

When  Christ  was  on  earth  he  never  once  told  the 
people  that  they  should  be  saved  by  imputed  righteous- 
ness ;  but  on  the  contrary,  when  they  inquired  of  him 
the  way  of  salvation,  he  always  told  them  that  they  must 
be  righteous  themselves.  The  answer  of  Christ  to  the 
man  that  inquired  of  him  vvhat  he  should  do  to  be  saved, 
sufficfently  proves  this.  "  There  came  one  running, 
and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him,  good  Master  what 
shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  1"  Thy  blessed 
Jesus  did  not  tell  this  inquiring  soul  that  he  must  put 
his  whole  trust  in  imputed  righteousness  :  but  hear  his 
answer :  "  Thou  knowest  the  commandments,  do  noi 
commit  adultery,  do  not  kill,  do  not  steal,  do  not  bear 
ialse  witness,  defraud  not,  honor  thy  father  and  mother. 
And  he  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Master,  all  these 
have  I  observed  from  my  youth.  Then  Jesus  behold- 
ing him,  loved  hini,  and  said  uato  him,  one  thing  thou 
lackest :  go  thy  way,  sell  whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give 
to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven  :  and 
come,  take  up  thy  cross  and  follow  me."  Mark  x.  17. 
19,  20,  21.  If  Jesus  had  known  that  a  firm  belief  in 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  was  essential  to 
this  man's  salvation,  he  surely  would  have  told  him  so. 
1  will  quote  a  few  more  passages  to  show  how  Christ 
taught  the  way  of  salvation.  "  And  behold,  a  certain 
lawyer  stood  up,  and  tempted  him,  saying,  Master, 
what  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?  He  said  unto 
him,  what  is  v,ritten  in  the  law  ?  how  rcadest  thou  ? 


220  DIFUTED    PvIGHTEOUSrsES^^ 

nnd  he  ansvreiing  said,  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  ih) 
God,  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  witii 
all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind  ;  and  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself.  And  he  said  unto  him,  thou  hast  an- 
swered right  :  this  do,  and  thou  shalt  live."  Luk.  x. 
25,  26,  27,  28.  Jesus  did  not  tell  the  lawyer  that  he 
would  inherit  eternal  lite  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
being  imputed  to  him,  but  he  told  him  that  he  must  be  a 
good  man  himself. 

It  is  natural  for  us  to  suppose  that  Christ,  in  his  ser- 
mon on  the  Mount,  would  teach  the  true  way  of  salva- 
tion, but  m  that  sermon  he  has  taught  nothing  about 
imputed  righteousness.  He  commences  his  sermon  by 
pronouncing  blessings  on  certain  characters  :  he  says. 
^'  Blessed  are  the  meek.  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart. 
Blessed  are  the  peace-makers,  &c."  But  he  never 
says,  *'  Blessed  are  the  persons  who  firmly  depend  on 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  for  their  justifica- 
tion before  God."  If  such  a  dependance  is  essential 
to  the  salvation  of  sinners,  Christ  has  never  taught  them 
enough  to  save  their  souls,  because  we  are  in  no  part  of 
•  he  holy  scriptures  taught  to  depend  on  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  being  imputed  to  us. 

The  whole  of  his  sermon  on  the  Mount  consists  in 
teaching  our  duties  to  God  and  each  other,  and  in  ex- 
horting us  to  abstain  from  vile  and  evil  passions  :  and 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  sermon  he  makes  the  following 
remarkable  observation  :  "  Therefore  v.hosoever  hear- 
eth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken 
him  unto  a  wise  man  which  built  his  house  upon  a  rock  : 
A.nd  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came,  and  the 
winds  blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house  and  it  fell  not,  for 
it  was  founded  upon  a  rock."  Here  the  Saviour  closes 
his  sermon  without  teaching  his  hearers  any  other  means 
or  condition  of  salvation,  but  that  of  obedience. 

By  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  Christ  shows  thr- 
principle  on  which  God  will  receive  repenting  sinners  : 
but  in  that  case  there  is  no  account  that  the  father  re- 
quired any  substitute  to  suffer  instead  of  the  prodigal, 
in  order  to  appease  his  wrath,  nor  is  there  the  slightest 
intimation  that  he  imputed  the  righteousness  of  any 
other  person  to  his  profligate  son  :  all  that  was  neces- 


IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  221 

sary  for  the  son,  in  order  to  be  remstated  in  the  affee- 
lions  and  house  of  his  father,  was  to  forsake  his  folly, 
return  to  his  father,  and  confess  his  faults.  If  God  will 
receive  sinners  on  no  other  condition  but  that  of  suret} 
righteousness,  this  parable  does  not  fairly  illustrate  the 
case  ;  he  should  have  said  that  the  father  whipped  the 
elder  son  in  the  room  and  stead  of  the  prodigal  ;  and 
then  imputed  the  obedience  of  the  elder  son  to  the 
younger  one. 

By  the  parable  of  the  sovrcr,  Christ  explains  on  what 
principle  we  may  expect  to  be  saved.  Speaking  of  the 
seed,  he  says,  "  but  that  on  the  good  ground  are  they, 
which  in  an  honest  and  good  heart,  having  heard  the 
v/ord,  keep  if,  and  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience.  Luk. 
viii.  15.  Here  he  clearly  shovrs  that  salvation  depends 
on  obedience,  and  says  nothing  about  imputed  righte- 
ousness. I  now  ask  what  good  would  it  do  the  stony, 
or  thorny  ground,  to  impute  the  crop  of  the  good  ground 
to  it  1  Would  not  the  stones,  or  the  thorns  still  be  there  ' 
Besides  if  it  were  imputed,  it  would  be  a  false  imputa- 
tion, because  the  good  crop  v»o«ld  be  standing  on  the 
;^ood  ground,  while  on  the  other  there  would  be  nothing 
but  thorns,  or  stones. 

To  impute,  is  to  ascribe,  to  charge,  or  to  account,  Ii 
>oems  to  me  that  no  honest  man  should  want  any  right- 
eousness imputed  to  him  but  his  own. 

What  would  we  think  of  a  preacher  that  would  im- 
pute or  ascribe  to  his  preaching,  great  revivals  of  reli- 
gion that  took  place  before  he  professed  religion  ?  what 
v/ould  we  think  of  a  statesman  that  would  try  to  have 
imputed  to  him,  great  and  popular  measures  which  he 
had  no  hand  in  framing,  or  to  whieh  he  was  opposed  ? 
And  what  would  we  tliink  of  an  old  tory  that  would  im- 
pute to  himself  the  services  of  Green,  of  Lee,  or  ol 
Washington  ? 

To  impute  health,  learning,  or  riches  to  me,  that  I  do 
not  possess,  may  serve  to  deceive  the  ignorant,  and 
make  them  think  better  of  me  than  I  deserve,  but  it  can 
do  me  no  real  good  :  so  I  think  to  impute  righteousness 
to  me,  whether  it  be  righteous  principles,  righteous  dis- 
position, or  righteous  actions,  which  do  not  belong  to 
.lie,  can  do  me  no  good.  To  impute  the  righteousneg.? 
19* 


222  IMPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

of  Christ  to  me,  cannot  raise  me  in  God's  esteem  ;  he- 
knows  how  good  and  how  bad  I  am  :  and  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  he  can  esteem  me  to  be  any  better  than  I  really 
am. 

In  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  Christ  by  the 
parable  of  the  talents,  shows  the  grounds  on  which  men 
will  be  justified  in  the  day  of  judgement.  "  And  so  he 
that  had  received  five  talents  came  and  brought  other 
five  talents,  saying,  Lord,  thou  deliveredst  unto  me  five 
talents  ;  behold,  I  have  gained  besides  them  five  talents 
more.  His  lord  said  unto  him,  well  done  thou  good 
and  faithful  servant :  thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few 
things,  I  will  make  thee  ruler  over  many  things  :  enter 
thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  lord."  If  there  can  be  no  jus- 
tification before  God  but  on  the  ground  of  imputed 
righteousness,  this  pai-able  does  not  give  a  fair  repre- 
sentation of  the  case,  because  it  holds  out  the  idea  that 
each  one  will  be  judged  according  to  his  own  works. 
To  suit  the  plan  of  imputed  righteousness,  the  lord's 
answer  to  the  servant  would  have  been  better  written 
thus  :  "  0  you  ill  doing  unfaithful  servant,  although  you 
have  occupied  your  talents  and  gained  as  many  more, 
yet  you  were  very  faulty,  and  I  never  would  have  for- 
given you,  had  it  not  been  that  your  surety  has,  in  your 
stead,  suffered  all  the  punishment  that  was  due  to  you. 
and  has  thereby  appeased  my  wrath,  and  be  it  known 
that  I  impute  his  righteousness  to  you,  and  on  that  ac- 
count, and  no  other,  you  stand  justified." 

In  the  following  parable,  Jesus  shows  on  what  ground 
his  Father  will  forgive  sins  :  "  Therefore  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  hkened  unto  a  certain  king,  which 
would  take  account  of  his  servants.  And  when  he  had 
begun  to  reckon,  one  was  brought  unto  him  which  owed 
him  ten  thousand  talents  :  but  for  as  much  as  he  had 
not  to  pay,  his  lord  commanded  him  to  be  sold,  and  his 
wife,  and  children,  and  all  that  he  had,  and  payment  to 
be  made.  The  servant  therefore  fell  down,  and  wor- 
shipped him,  saying.  Lord  have  patience  with  me,  and 
I  will  pay  thee  all.  Then  the  lord  of  that  servant  was 
moved  with  compassion,  and  loosed  him  and  forgave 
iiim  the  debt."  Here  Christ  does  not  say,  that  there 
was  a  surety  stepped  in  and  paid  the  debt  instead  oi 


IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  223 

ilie  servant.  If  a  surety  had  paid  this  debt,  his  lord 
could  not  have  made  him  pay  it  over  again  :  but  be-^ 
cause  he  refused  to  have  compassion  on  his  fellow-ser- 
vant, his  lord  made  him  pay  the  whole  debt.  And 
Christ  says,  "  So,  likewise,  shall  my  heavenly  Father 
do  also  unto  you,  if  ye  from  your  hearts  forgive  not 
every  one  his  brother  their  trespasses."  Mat.  xvhi. 
23—27.  35.  If  it  is  a  fact  that  God  the  Father  never 
does  forgive  without  the  debt  is  paid  by  a  surety,  Christ 
has,  in  this  parable,  misrepresented  him,  because  he 
has  said  as  plainly  as  human  speech  will  admit  of,  that 
he  forgives  without  having  the  debt  paid. 

"  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of 
flic  man  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works,  saying,  blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  for- 
given, and  whose  sins  are  covered."  Rom.  iv.  6,  7, 
This  text  has  often  been  brought  to  proTC  that  the  right- 
eousnesss  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  sinners,  but  it  only 
pro  ves  that  their  own  faith  is  imputed  to  them  for  righteous- 
ness. The  7th  verse  seems  to  have  been  designed  by 
the  writer,  as  an  explanation  of  the  Cth.  Thus  he  says^ 
'*  Even  as  David  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the 
man  unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works,  saying,  blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are 
forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered."  He  does  not 
say,  blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  have  been  paid 
for  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  In  the  third  verse  of  this 
chapter  it  is  said,  that  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and 
it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness."  And  in 
the  11th  verse  it  is  said,  that  "  He  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision;  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised  ;  that  he  might 
be  the  Father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be 
not  circumcised;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed 
to  them  also."  That  is,  that  righteousness  might  be 
imputed  to  them,  in  the  same  way  that  it  was  imputed 
to  Abraham.  His  faith  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness, and  their  faith  will  be  imputed  to  them  for 
righteousness.  But  it  is  not  said  in  this  chapter,  nor  in 
the  Bible,  that  the  righteousness  of  Chiist  is  imputed  to 
any  person. 

'-^  And  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  sbiill  be  called; 


^24  IJIPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS* 

THE  LORD  OUR  RIGHTEOUSNESS."  Jei. 
\xiii.  6.  If  this  text  will  prove  that  his  righteousness 
is  imputed  to  us,  then  the  following  text  will  prove  that 
the  righteousness  of  Jerusalem  is  also  imputed  to  us. 
'' In  those  days  shall  Judah  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem 
shall  dwell  safely  :  and  this  is  the  name  wherewith  she 
shalfbe  called,  the  Lord  our  righteousness."  Jer.  xxxiii. 
16.  If  because  he  is  called  our  righteousness,  his  right- 
eousness is  imputed  to  us,  then  his  peace  must  also  be 
imputed  to  us,  for  in  the  following  text  he  is  called  our 
peace  :  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both 
one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
between  us,"  Ephes.  ii.  14.  He  is  called  our  life. 
**  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall 
yo  also  appear  with  him  in  glory."  Col.  iii.  4.  V/e 
iiave  just  as  good  evidence  to  prove  that  his  life  and 
peace  are  imputed  to  us,  as  that  his  righteousness  is. — 
To  impute  his  peace  to  us  while  we  are  in  distress,  or 
to  impute  his  life  to  us,  while  we  are  in  a  state  of  spirit- 
ual death,  would  do  us  just  as  much  good  as  it  would  do 
us  to  impute  his  righteousness  to  us,  while  we  are  in  sin. 
He  is  our  peace  by  reconciling  us  to  God,  and  filling 
our  souls  with  peace  ;  by  imparting  to  us  eternal  life, 
ho  becomes  our  life  ;  and  by  writing  the  law  of  God  on 
our  hearts,  and  implanting  his  righteousness  there,  he 
becomes  the  Lord  our  rto-JiieGUsness. 

The  following  text  has  been  often  quoted  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness  :  "  But  of  him 
a^.-e  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who,  of  God,  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom  and  righteousness,  and  sanctificaiion  and  re- 
demption." 1  Cor.  i.  30.  If  this  text  will  prove  that 
his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  it  vvill  also  prove  that 
his  wisdom,  sanctification,  and  redemption,  arc  imputed 
to  us.  That  is,  it  proves  that  if  he  was  righteous  in  our 
room  and  stead,  then  he  was  icise  in  our  room  and 
stead,  sanctified  in  our  room  and  stead,  and  experienced 
redemption  in  our  room  and  stead.  Now  if  all  this  be 
true,  what  good  can  it  do  us  1  But  for  him  to  be  wise, 
to  be  sanctified,  or  redeemed  instead  of  us,  would  do 
us  just  as  much  good  as  it  would  do  us  for  him  to  be 
righteous  instead  of  us.  He  is,  no  doubt,  made  unto 
■.i.«  righteousness  the  same  way  he  is  made  uuto  us  ms- 


IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  225 

ncniy  &c.  He  is  made  unto  us  wisdom  by  teaching  us, 
and  making  us  wise;  he  is  made  unto  us  sanctification  by 
sanctifying  us  ;  he  is  made  unto  us  redemption  by  re- 
deeaiing  us  from  sin,  misery,  and  death  ;  and  he  is  made 
unto  us  righteousness  by  making  us  righteous. 

If  men  are  to  be  justified,  and  finally  saved  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  them,  then  they  will 
not  be  judged,  nor  rewarded,  according  to  their  own 
works,  but  according  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
which  he  wrought  out  for  them.  This  doctrine  flatly 
contradicts  the  Bible  :  that  holy  book  abundantly  proves 
that  every  one  will  be  judged  according  to  his  own 
works.  David  says,  "  x\lso  unto  thee,  0  Lord,  be- 
hngeth  mercy ;  for  thou  renderest  to  every  man  ac- 
cordincj  to  his  works."  Psal.  Ixii.  12.  Solomon  says. 
''  xVnd  shall  not  he  render  to  every  man  accordinoj  to  his 
works'?"  Prov.  xxiv.  12.  Paul  says,  God  will  render 
to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds.  Rom.  ii,  6. — 
Jeremiah  says  of  God,  that  his  "  Eyes  are  open  upon 
all  the  ways  of  the  sons  of  men  ;  to  give  every  one 
according  to  his  ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his 
doings."  Jer.  xxxii.  19.  God  himself  says,  "  I,  the 
Lord,  search  the  heart,  /  try  the  reins,  even  to  give 
every  man  according  to  his  ways,  and  according  to  the 
fruit  of  his  doings."  Jer.  xvii.  10.  Jesus  Christ  says, 
•'  All  the  churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he  which 
searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts  ;  and  I  will  give  unto 
every  one  of  you  according  to  your  works."  Rev.  ii.  23, 
Again  he  says,  "  Behold,  I  come  quickly  ;  and  my  re- 
ward is  with  me,  to  give  every  man  according  as  his 
work  shall  be."  Rev.  xxii.  12.  And  again  the  blessed 
Jesus  says,  "  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father  with  his  angels  ;  and  then  he  shall 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works."  Matt, 
xvi.  27. 

People  may  impute  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to 
themselves  now,  and  solace  themselves  ^vith  the  hope 
tliat  he  as  their  surety  has  been  righteous  in  their  room 
and  stead,  but  when  the  day  of  judgement  comes  they 
will  find  their  mistake.  In  the  great  day,  when  God 
shall  judge  the  secrets  of  all  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  ac- 
i-'ording  to  the  gospel,  then  those  who  shall  have  obeyed 


226  IMPUTED    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

that  gospel ;  that  is,  repented  of  their  sins,  and  done  t<^ 
ull  their  fellow-creatures  all  things  whatsoever  the\ 
■^voLild  that  others  should  do  to  them,  and  continued  till 
death  loving  God  with  all  their  hearts,  and  their  neigh- 
bors as  themselves,  will  be  honorably  and  gloriousl} 
Welcomed  into  eternal  happiness.  The  judge  will  not 
say,  "  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the 
kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world:  For  I  have  fulfilled  the  law,  and  made  satisfac- 
tion  to  divine  justice  in  your  stead,  reconciled  God  to 
you,  and  for  you  purchased  his  favor,  and  now  unto 
you  impute  all  my  righteousness,  for  the  sake  of  which, 
and  for  no  other  cause,  I  welcome  you  into  the  kingdom 
prepared  for  you  from  the  toundation  of  the  world." — 
O  no,  neither  surety,  nor  imputed  righteousness  will 
Chen  be  taken  into  the  account.  IMen  may  rest  their 
souls  on  those  doctrines  now,  but  as  sure  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  a  true  teacher,  they  will  do  no  good  in  the  day 
of  judgement. 

But  at  that  day  the  blessed  Saviour  will  say  to  the 
good  people,  "  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit 
the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  ol 
the  world  :  for  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  mc 
meat :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink  :  I  was  a 
stranger,  and  ye  took  me  in  :  naked,  and  ye  clothed 
me  :  I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me  :  I  was  in  prison, 
and  ye  came  unto  me.  Then  shall  the  righteous  an- 
swer him,  saying.  Lord,  when  saw  we  thee  a  hungered, 
and  fed  thee  ?  or  thirsty,  and  gave  thee  drink  ?  &c. — 
And  the  King  shall  answer,  and  say  unto  them,  verilj  I 
say  unto  you,  inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  oi 
the  least  of  these,  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto 
me."     Mat.  xxv.  34—40. 

Here  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  we  will  not 
be  judged  by  our  opinions;  he  will  not  welcome  us 
into  everlasting  life  for  being  Trinitarians,  nor  Unita- 
rians, nor  will  he  welcome  us  into  heaven  because  we 
believe  that  Christ  purchased  the  grace  of  God  for 
men,  nor  v»'ill  we  be  saved  for  believing  in  the  doctrint 
of  free  grace  without  any  purchase.  In  that  day  the 
pass-word  will  not  be  ^'\ Veil  believed'^  nor  "  iVell  said,-" 
l#ut  it  v.'ill  be  "  Well  done  good  and  faithful  servant.-  - 


"  ijJPUTED   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  227 

There  is  ouc  thing  more  that  we  should  carefully  ob- 
serve relative  to  the  final  judgement,  and  that  is  that  no 
acts  of  the  human  family  will  be  rewarded  in  that  day, 
but  acts  of  benevolence  or  kindness  to  our  fellow-crea- 
tures ;  of  course  our  prayers,  our  songs,  and  our 
preaching,  will  only  be  taken  into  the  account  so  far  as 
they  are  really  acts  of  benevolence.  When  religious 
exercises  are  prompted  by  a  principle  of  gain,  of  popu- 
larity, or  of  partyism,  they  are  an  abomination  to  the 
Lord.  *'  But  to  do  good,  and  to  communicate,  forget 
not:  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased." — 
Heb.  xiii.  16.  Jesus  says,  'SSell  that  ye  have,  and 
give  alms  ;  provide  yourselves  bags  which  wax  not  old, 
a  treasure  in  the  heavens,  that  faileth  not,  where  no 
thief  approachelh,  neither  moth  corrupteth.*'  Luk. 
xii.  33. 

In  that  great  day,  those  on  the  left  hand  will  not  be 
condemned  for  Adam's  sin.  The  judge  will  not  say  tu 
them,  "  Depart  ye  cursed  into  everlasting  fire  prepared 
for  the  Devil  and  his  angels,  because  old  Adam  com- 
mitted a  sin,  and  I  imputed  it  to  you."  ]S'or  will  he 
drive  them  down  to  hell  for  their  erroneous  opinions. ^ — 
He  will  not  tell  them  that  they  must  be  damned  for  be- 
ing Calvinists,  Unitarians,  Universalists,  JevvS,  Ma- 
hometants,  or  any  other  denomination  ;  but  their  un- 
kindness  to  their  fellow-creatures,  is  all  the  crime  that 
will  be  charged  against  them. 


3^fi  IMPTJIIXG    SIN    TO    CHRIST 


CHAPTER  VII, 


OP    IMPUTING    SIN    TO    CHRIST. 


*'  Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law."  1  Joh.  iii.  4. 
To  impute  sin  to  any  person  is  to  charge  him  with 
a  wicked  action.  Clirist  could  not,  in  truth,  be  charged 
with  any  wicked  action,  because  he  did  no  sin,  neither 
was  guile  found  in  his  mouth.  Sin  is  sometimes  taken 
for  depravity  of  mind,  or  naughtiness  of  disposition,  but 
no  such  depravity  could,  in  truth,  be  imp.ited  to  the  im- 
maculate Jesus,  he  was  holy  and  undeiiled.  Neither 
righteousness  nor  sin  is  transferable,  because  they  both 
respect  practice  and  character,  and  it  is  impossible  that 
the  actions  of  one  person  can  become  the  actions  of 
another  person.  It  is  just  as  impossible  for  two  people 
to  transfer  their  actions  to  each  other,  as  it  is  for  theni 
to  transfer  their  persons  to  each  other.  And  if  we  im- 
pute the  actions  of  one  person  to  another,  it  is  altogeth- 
er as  false  as  if  we  should  say  that  the  one  person  is  the 
other.  If  we  say  that  Napoleon  was  the  author 
of  the  Newtonian  system,  and  that  Isaac  Nev/ton 
commanded  the  French  at  the  battle  of  Moscow,  it 
fs  quite  as  untrue  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  Nev,ton  v/as 
Napoleon,  and  Napoleon  was  Newton.  Just  so  if  we 
impute  the  sins  of  a  wicked  man  to  Christ,  or  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  to  a  wicked  man,  it  is  altogether  as 
untrue  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  Christ  is  a  certain 
wicked  man,  or  that  some  certain  wicked  man  is  Christ. 

It  is  equally  untrue  to  say  that  the  guilt  of  sin  was 
imputed  to  the  Saviour,  because  it  is  impossible  for  a 
person  that  never  committed  sin  to  feel  guilty.  To  im- 
pute guilt  to  a  person,  is  to  charge  him  with  being  guilty 
of  sin.  God  would  not  charge  Christ  with  guilt,  be- 
cause he  knew  that  he  was  not  guilty.  If  he  had  been 
tiharged  with  guilt,  the  charge  would  have  been  false; 
and  the  Holy  God  would  not  make  a  false  imputation. 

The  advocates  of  imputed  sin  commonly  believe  .that 


IIhPL'TING    sin    to   CHRIST.  229 

Christ  is  God  in  every  respect  equal  -vvith  tlie  Father  : 
i  now  ask  if  it  would  be  proper  to  impute  sin  to  the 
supreme  God?  If  God  imputed  sin  to  Christ,  while 
ut  the  same  time  Christ  was  the  supreme  God,  then  the 
supreme  God  has  imputed  sin  to  himself.  If  God 
knows  that  he  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  it  is  impossible 
ihat  he  could  impute,  or  charge  it  to  himself:  but  if  he 
has  imputed  it  to  Christ,  and  Christ  is  not  a  distinct  be- 
ing from  God,  but  is  only  one  of  the  three  persons  o( 
whom  he  consists,  or  in  whom  he  exists,  then  he  has 
imputed  sin  to  himself,  or  at  least  to  one  third  part  of 
his  own  essence. 

If  it  be  contended  that  Christ  is  not  merely  the  third 
part  of  God's  essence,  but  that  he  is  the  whole  supreme- 
God,  then  if  sin  is  imputed  to  him,  it  is  imputed  to  the 
whole  supreme  God.  If  so,  God  has  cleared  man* 
kind  of  sin,  and  taken  all  the  blame  on  himself.  And, 
in  fact,  if  he  has  ordained  all  things  whatsoever  conies 
to  pass,  he  ought  to  impute  all  sin  and  guilt  to  himself. 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  say,  that  sin  w^as  im- 
puted to  Christ  in  order  that  he  might  siuTer  the  penaltv 
of  the  law,  which  was  the  wrath  of  God,  in  the  room  oi 
sinners,  and  that  accordingly  the  wrath  of  God  was 
poured  out  on  him  in  our  stead.  But  it  appears  to  me 
impossible  that  God  ever  could  have  been  angry  with 
iiis  Son.  We  cannot  possibly  conceive  how  any  beinir 
can  be  angry  or  ^^roth  with  another,  without  ^ihe  other 
has  offended  him,  or  is  in  some  way  offensive  to  liim. 
Surely  Christ  in  his  conduct  never  offended  God,  and 
as  he  is  the  brightness  of  his  Father's  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  person,  he  never  could  in  his  nature, 
or  disposition,  be  offensive  to  his  Father.  -  If  Christ 
never  offended  God,  bow  could  God,  in  reality,  be  an- 
gty  with  him  1  To  say  that  God  poured  out  his'wrath  on 
his  Son,  but  never  was  the  least  offernJed  with  him,  is 
?he  same  as  to  say  that  God  was  very  wroth  with  his 
Son,  but,  at  the  same  time,  not  the  least  angry  with 
him.  But  one  will  say,  that  as  Christ  took  it  upon  him 
to  die  for  sinners,  then  he  legally  incurred  all  the  wrath 
of  God  that  was  due  to  them  for  their  sins.  Now  I 
ask,  was  his  offering  himself  up  as  a  sacriiice  to  God 
for  our  salvation,  au  act  of  rebellion  against  hi:;  Father's 
20 


230  IMPUTING    SIN    TO    CHRIST/' 

•will  ?  If  it  was  not,  then  his  Father  could  not  be  air- 
gry  with  him  for  doing  it.  The  scriptures  abundantly 
prove  that  he  suffered  in  obedience  to  his  Father ;  of 
course  his  Father,  instead  of  being  wroth  with  him  on 
that  account,  must  have  loved  him  the  better.  This 
appears  to  have  been  Christ's  own  opinion  :  hence  he 
says,  therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay 
down  my  life  that  I  might  take  it  again.     Joh.  x.  17. 

The  Son  of  God  is  the  brightness  of  his  Father's 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person.  If  God 
was  wroth  with  Christ,  he  was  angry  with  the  bright- 
ness of  his  own  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  own 
person,  which  is  the  same  as  to  be  angry  with  himself. 
The  believers  in  imputed  sin  commonly  hold  that  Christ 
is  the  supreme  God.  If  Christ  is  the  supreme  God, 
and  if  his  Father  did  pour  out  his  wrath  on  him  instead 
of  sinners,  then  the  supreme  God  must  have  poured  out 
his  wrath  on  the  supreme  God,  that  is,  he  must  have 
poured  out  his  wrath  on  himself,  in  order  to  reconcile 
himself  to  sinners. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  God  only  poured  out  his 
wrath  on  the  humanity  of  Christ.  This  seems  impos- 
sible, because  if  (as  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith 
says)  his  Godhead  and  manhood  were  joined  together, 
never  to  be  separated,  but  to  continue  two  distinct  na- 
tures, and  one  person  forever,  I  cannot  perceive  how 
one  part  of  his  person  could  be  punished  without  the 
s\hole  person  being  conscious  of  pain.  If  one  member 
suffers,  the  whole  body  suffers.  A  person  is  one  indi- 
vidual conscious  being.  If  the  human  nature  really 
and  properly  belongs  to  Christ's  person,  whenever  it 
suffered  his  whole  person  must  have  been  conscious  of 
pain.  If  the  human  nature  of  his  person  suffered,  and 
the  divine  nature  of  his  person  suffered  not,  then  his 
person  must  have  been  afflicted  with  severe  pain,  and  at 
the  same  time  felt  no  pain  at  all. 

If,  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  says,  his  human  and 
divine  natures  were  never  to  be  separated,  then  they 
must  have  suffered  together,  and  died  together.  But 
then  we  ask,  if  his  divinity  was  the  supreme  God,  how 
could  it  die  ?  And  again,  if  nothing  but  the  humanity 
died^f,  how  could  it  pay  an  infinite  penalty  ?  or  rnak^  as. 


IMPUTING   SIN   TO   CHRIST.  231 

infinite  satisfaction  to  an  infinite  law,  and  pay  an  infi- 
nite debt  1  If  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  the  supreme  God. 
and  if  his  human  nature  really  belongs  to  his  person, 
then,  according  to  this  doctrine,  God  must  have  imput- 
ed the  sins  of  mankind  to  his  own  person,  and  also 
poured  out  his  wrath  on  his  own  person. 

If  the  supreme  God  has  taken  on  him  human  na- 
ture, he  has  changed,  and  is  not  now  what  he  once  was  : 
anterior  to  the  conception  of  Christ  he  was  simply  a 
divine  person,  but  since  that  time  his  person  has  been 
as  really  human  as  it  is  divine.  The  scripture  says. 
God  is  unchangeable,  but  this  doctrine  says,  that  ever 
since  the  days  of  Augustus  Csezar  he  has  had  a  nature 
added  to  his  person  that  he  never  had  before.  Trinita- 
rians must  admit  this  difficulty,  or  else  make  Christ's 
human  nature  without  beginning.  And  if  that  is  a  fact, 
-then  he  never  took  on  him  human  nature,  because  he 
always  had  it  on  him  from  all  eternity. 


■Vy2        CHRIST    BiiARIXG    THE    WKATH    OF    GOr 


CHAPTER    VIII, 


OF    CHRIST    BEARING    THE    1VR.»TH    OF    GOD. 


1  now  aslv  llie  candid  reader,  do  you  believe  that  God 
ever  did  hate  Jesus  Christ  1  Do  you  think  he  ever  was 
in  his  heart  raigry,  or  wroth  with  the  blessed  Jesus  ' 
To  both  these  questions  every  pious  mind  will,  proba- 
bly, answer  no.  Then  if  God  never  was  wroth  with  hi^^ 
,Son,  how  could  he  pour  his  wroth  out  on  him  in  the 
room  and  stead  of  sinners  ?  If  we  should  admit  tha' 
the  divine  Being  did  pour  out  his  wrath  on  his  Son. 
what  good  could  it  do  mankind  ?  Certainly  it  could  nor 
make  the  Almighty  love  us  any  better  than  he  would 
have  done.  All  rational  beings  love  others  according 
us  they  appear  to  them  more  or  less  lovely.  And  if  God 
was  angry  with  his  Son,  and  did  kill  him,  it  could  not 
change  iiis  opinion  of  us.  If  it  \yas  a  meritorious  act 
for  Christ  to  die  ;  and  if  it  was  a  meritorious  act  in  God 
to  kill  him,  still  he  knows  it  was  no  act  of  ours.  Tht 
sufierings  of  Christ  have  not  deceived  God  respecting 
us,  so  as  to  raise  us  in  his  esteem  above  what  we  de- 
serve. He  knows  exactly  how  bad,  and  hov/  good  v/e 
arcj  and  what  the  Saviour  has  done  for  us  can  raise  us 
in  his  esteem  and  favor  only  as  it  graciously  affects 
our  hearts,  and  makes  us  better  people. 

As  it  is  impossible  that  the  sufferings  cf  Christ  couki 
'Icceive  God,  and  make  him  think  of  us  better  than  W( 
deserve,  so  it  is  equally  impossible  that  they  could  hav( 
reconciled  him  to  sin,  or  made  him  more  disposed  to 
approbate  our  wickedness  than  he  otherwise  v;ould 
have  been.  He  is  as  much  opposed  to  sin  now  as  he 
was  before  the  corning  of  Christ  ;  and  instead  of  being 
more  indulgent  to  sinners,  he  is  more  strict  with  them 
under  the  gospel  than  he  was  under  the  law  ;  because 
*liey  have  more  light  now  than  they  had  then.  Hence. 
Christ  says,  "If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto 
Ihem,  thev  had  not  had  sin  :  but  nov.-  they  have  no  clcaK 


CHRIST    BEARING    THE   WRATH   OP    GOD,         233 

for  their  sin."  Joh.  xv.  22.  The  advocates  of  imputed 
righteousness  think  very  differently  from  Christ  on  this 
subject.  They  think  that  if  he  had  not  come,  they 
would  have  had  a  great  deal  of  sin,  for  which  they 
would  have  all  been  damned,  but  now  that  he  has  come, 
and  suffered  as  a  surety  in  their  room  and  stead,  he  has 
wrought  out  a  complete  righteousness,  which  being  im- 
puted to  them,  will  serve  as  a  cloak  or  covering  for  all 
their  sins. 

The  difference  between  him  and  them  on  the  subject 
is  this  ;  he  holds  out  the  idea  that  in  consequence  of 
what  he  has  done,  they  have  no  cloak  for  their  sin,  while 
on  the  other  hand  they  affirm  that  in  virtue  of  what  he 
has  done  for  them,  they  are  furnished  with  a  cloak  of 
imputed  righteousness,  which  will  completely  cover  all 
their  sins. 

Speaking  of  the  former  dark  ages  of  the  world,  Paul 
says,  "  The  times  of  this  ignorance  God  winked  at. 
but  now  commandeth  all  men  every  where  to  repent.'- 
Act.  xvii.  30.  And  Jesus  says,  it  shall  be  more  tolera- 
ble for  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
in  the  day  of  judgement,  than  for  those  who  have  slight- 
ed his  gospel,  and  that  the  queen  of  the  south,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgement 
and  condemn  gospel  sUghters. 

Some  people  say  that  God  was  not  really  angry  with 
his  Son  as  an  individual,  but  being  angry  with  mankind, 
and  Christ  having  become  their  surety,  he  poured  out 
his  wrath  on  him  in  their  stead.  If  this  be  true,  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  must  have  been  a  most  exemplary 
display  of  God's  indignation,  and  wrath  against  the  hu- 
man family.  But  the  scriptures  represent  his  sufferings 
as  a  manifestation  of  God's  love  to  us.  Paul  says, 
*'  But  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us."  Rom. 
v.  8.  John  says,  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  Joh.  iv.  10.  If  God 
poured  his  wrath  on  his  Son  instead  of  us,  these  pas- 
sages must  be  false  ;  if  that  doctrine  be  true,  they 
would  have  been  more  properly  ^vritte^  thus  :  *'  But 
Ood  display eth  his  wrath  towards  us,  in  that  while  we 
20* 


;-!34        CHKIST    BEAr.INC;    THE    T>T.ATn    or    GOD 

were  yet  sinners,  he  killed  his  Son  instead  of  us.-'  And 
if  it  is  a  fact  that  God  poured  out  his  wrath  on  Christ, 
and  killed  him  instead  of  sinners,  because  he  was  an- 
gry widi  them  ;  then  the  passage  in  1  Joh.^iv.  10,  woulci 
have  expressed  the  cause  of  his  sufferings  much  better 
if  it  had  been  written  thus  :  *'  Herein  is  wrath,  not  thai 
we  were  wroth  with  God,  because  we  were  not  then  ii^ 
existence,  but  that  he  was  wroth  v.ith  us,  and  killed  his 
own  Son  to  reconcile  himself  to  us." 

Christ  did  not  come  into  this  world  to  procure  thf 
Jove  of  God  to  the  human  family  :  but  on  the  contrary. 
it  w^as  the  love  that  God  had  to  mankind,  which  caused 
?iim  to  send  Christ  to  be  their  Saviour.  This  is  evident 
from  the  words  of  Christ  himself.  He  says,  ''  For  God 
so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son. 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  bu* 
liave  everlasting  life."  Joh.  iii.  16.  He  does  not  sa\ 
ihat  God  was  so  angry  with  the  v\oild,  that  he  poured 
out  his  wrath  on  his  own  Son  instead  of  it. 

Speaking  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  John  says, 
••  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid 
down  his  life  for  us."  1  Joh.  iii.  16.  Again  he  says. 
'•  In  this  was  manifested  the  love  of  God  toward  us,  be- 
i!ause  that  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world 
jhat  we  might  Uve  through  him."  Chap.  iv.  9.  If  the 
death  of  Christ  was  occasioned  by  the  N'iTath  of  God 
oeing  poured  out  on  him  in  the  room  and  stead  of  sin- 
ners, it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  John  would  have  men- 
tioned it  as  a  manifestation  of  God's  love  to  us  ;  but  on 
the  contrary  he  would  have  been  more  naturally  led  to 
say,  '•  In  this  was  manifested  the  wrath  of  God  toward 
iis,  because  that  he  poured  it  out  on  his  Son  instead  of 
as." 

It  Christ  drank  the  cup  of  God's  wrath,  his  disciples 
must  have  drunken  it  also,  for,  "  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
ye  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of,  and  be 
baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with." 
Mark  x.  39,  That  he  here  alludes  to  his  sufferings 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  because  the  same  night  he  was 
betrayed,  when  his  soul  was  exceedingly  sorrowful  even 
\mto  death ;  he  prayed,  saying,  "  O  my  Father,  if  it  be 
j>ossible.  let  thi?  cup  pass  from  mc"     Mut.  ^cxyi^  3r». 


JURIST    BEARING    WITInE?.-,  iSo 

\gain  he  says,  '•  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  : 
imd  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  !"  Luk, 
xii.  50.  Paul  was  willing  to  suffer  the  loss  oi"  all  things 
that  he  might  know  the  "  fello^vship  of  his  sufferings, 
being  made  conformable  to  his  death."  Phil.  iii.  10. 
That  Paul  suffered  the  same  kind  of  afflictions  that 
Christ  did,  is  plain  from  Col.  i.  24.  '"  Who  now  re- 
joice in  my  sutierings  for  you,  and  fill  up  that  which  i.s 
behind  of  the  afflictions  oi^  Christ  in  my  flesh  lor  his 
body's  sake,  which  is  the  church."  Paul  and  Timothy 
hold  out  the  idea  that  they  experienced  the  same  kind 
of  sutTering  that  Christ  did  ;  they  say,  "  For  as  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  abound  in  us,  so  our  consolation  also 
aboundelh  by  Christ.  And  whether  we  be  afflicted,  2/ 
is  for  your  consolation  and  salvation."  2  Cor.  i.  5,  6. 
If  the  sufferings  of  Ciiiist  were  occasioned  by  the  wrath 
of  God,  Paul  and  Timothy  must  iiave  borne  the  wrath 
of  God,  because  they,  in  their  measure,  bore  the  samt 
affliction?  that  Christ  borr- 


136  PURCHASED   GRACE. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THOUGHTS    ON    THE    DOCTRINE    OF    PURCHASED    GRACL. 

It  is  believed  and  preached  by  many  good  people  thai 
ihe  blessed  Jesus  purchased  the  grace,  or  favor  of  God 
for  mankind,  that  is,  that  all  the  blessings,  both  tempo- 
ral and  spiritual,  which  we  receive  from  God,  were 
purchased  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  they  are  now  con- 
ferred on  us  as  so  many  blessings  merited  by  him. 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  God  has  never  given  any 
blessings  to  mankind,  they  have  all  been  purchased, 
and  paid  for,  by  Christ.  I  have  several  reasons  for  not 
believing  this  doctrine.  The  first  reason  I  have  for  not 
believing  it,  is,  because  it  is  not  in  the  Bible.  It  is 
no  where  said  in  that  holy  book  that  Christ  purchased 
any  favor  or  blessing  from  God,  for  mankmd.  My  se- 
cond reason  is,  because  it  is  impossible  that  Christ 
could  purchase  any  thing  from'^God :  for  if  he  is  a  created 
and  dependant  being,  he  could  purchase  nothing  from 
his  Father,  because  he  and  all  he  had  belonged  to  him 
already  :  and  if  he  is  the  uncreated  self-existent  God, 
he  certainly  could  purchase  nothing  from  himself. 

The  third  objection  I  have  to  this  doctrine  is,  it  stripes 
God  of  grace  and  mercy  altogether,  because,  if  pardon 
and  every  other  blessing  are  paid  for  by  Jesus  Christ, 
none  of  them  can  be  given  to  us  by  the  Father.  But 
the  scripture  represents  the  Father  as  a  God  of  grace 
and  mercy. 

Paul  says,  '^  But  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his 
great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were 
dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christy 
(by  grace  ye  are  saved.")  Ephes.  ii.  4,  5.  He  doe^ 
not  say  that  God  is  rich  in  wrath,  and  would  bestow  no 
mercy,  and  that  by  the  merits  of  Christ  we  are  saved. 
Paul  says,  God  is  not  worshipped  with  men's  hands,  as 
though  he  needed  any  thing  ;  "  seeing  he  giveth  to  all, 
life,  £ind  breath,  and  all  things.    Act.  .xvii.  25.    Be 


PURCHASED    GRACE,  137 

Aid  not  say  that  God  sold  to  Christ,  life,  and  breath,  and 
all  things,  and  then  Christ  ga\  ■:  ihem  lo  us.  "  By  grace- 
are  ye  saved  through  faith  :,and  that  not  of  yourselves  ; 
it  is  the  gift  of  God."  Ephe.-:.  ii.  S.  As  sure  as  this 
text  is  true,  the  grace  which  saves  us  was  not  pur- 
chased, but  was  the  gift  of  God.  *'  For  the  wages  oi 
sin  is  death  ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Rom.  vi.  23.  He  does  not 
nay  that  eternal  life  was  purchased  from  God  by  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  But  if  that  is  the  v/ay  that  we  receive 
eternal  life,  Paul  has  entirely  misrepresented  it. 

James  says,  "  Every  good  gift,  and  every  perfec? 
gift,  is  from  abave,  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father 
of  lights,  with  Avhom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning."  Jam.  i.  17^  This  text  abundantly  proves 
that  no  goody  nor.  perfect  gift  that  we  receive  \vas  pur- 
chased by  Christ,  because  the.  Apostle  says,  they  all 
came  dov.n  from  the  Father  of  lights.  It  cannot  be- 
that  the  Father  of  lights  bestows  these  blessings  on  us 
because  lie  has  been  reconciled  to  us  by  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  for  if  that  was  the  case,  then  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  must  have  changed  him:  but  the  text  says  he 
knows  ''  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  oi  turning. '^^ 

Paul  ascribes  our  justiiication  to  the  free  grace  of 
God.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ."  Rom.  iii.  24. 
He  does  not  say  we  are  justified  by  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  '•  Xov/  we  have  received,  not  the 
.spirit  of  the  v.orid,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God  ;  that 
wc  might  Imow  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  us  of 
God."  1  Cor.  ii.  12.  As  sure  as  this  text  is  the  truth, 
the  blessings  of  the  gospel  were  not  purchased  b\ 
Christ,  but  were  freely  given  to  us  of  God.  God  ha^ 
said,  "  I  will  give  unto  him  that  is  athirst,  of  the  foun- 
tain of  the  water  of  life  freely."  Rev.  xxi.  6.  *'  And 
God,  even  our  Father  which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath 
given  ^s  everlasting  consolation  and  good  hope  through 
grace."  2  Thess.  ii.  16.  He  does  not  say  that  this 
consolation  was  purchased  by  the  merits  of  Christ,  but 
lie  says  our  heavenly  Father  gave  it  to  us  through  grace. 
''Thanks  6e  unto  God  for  his  unspeakable  gift."  2 
Cor,  ix.  1-5,     If  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  had  boeii 


13s  PURCHASED    GRACE. 

purchased  by  Christ,  they  would  not  have  been  called 
(God's  gift.  If  a  man  should  buy  a  thing  of  you,  and 
pay  you  the  full  price  for  it,  you  could  not  in  truth  sa\ 
that  you  gave  it  to  him. 

If  Christ  purchased  our  pardon  from  God  by  suffer- 
ing the  demands  of  law  and  justice  in  our  room  and 
stead,  then  the  Father  has  never  forgiven  sin,  but  has 
taken  vengeance  on  our  surety,  and  made  him  pay  up 
the  last  mite  of  sufferings  that  was  due  to  us  for  our 
sins. 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  almost  the  whole  scripture  is 
false,  because  both  the  Old  and  ^e\v  Testaments  abun- 
dantly prove  that  God  forgives  sin.  Isaiah  says,  ''Let 
the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man 
his  thoughts  :  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he 
will  have  niercy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will 
abundantly  pardon."  Isa.  Iv.  7.  Chap,  xxxlii.  24.  I 
will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  will  remember  their  sins 
no  more."  Jer.  xxxi.  34.  ''  And  I  will  pardon  all  their 
iniquities,  whereby  they  have  sinned,  and  whereby  they 
have  transgressed  against  me."  Jer.  xxxiii.  8.  "  It 
may  be  that  the  house  of  Judah  will  hear  all  the  evil 
which  I  purpose  to  do  unto  them  ;  that  they  may  return 
every  man  from  his  evil  way,  that  I  may  forgive  their 
iniquity  and  their  sin."  Jer.  xxxvi.  3.  "  Blessed  is 
he  whose  transgression  is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is  cover- 
ed." Psal.  xxxii.  1.  "  T31ess  the  Lord,  0  my  soul, 
and  forget  not  all  his  benefits  :  who  forgiveth  all  thine 
iniquities."  Psal.  ciii.  2,  3.  "  But  there  ?5  forgiveness 
with  thee,  that  thou  mayest  be  feared."  Psal.  cxxx.  4. 
''  If  my  people,  which  are  called  by  my  name,  shall 
humble  themselves,  and  pray,  and  seek  my  face,  and 
turn  from  their  wicked  ways  ;  then  I  will  hear  from  hea- 
ven, and  will  forgive  their  sin,  and  will  heal  their  land." 
2  Chron.  vii.  14.  "  But  thou  art  a  God  ready  to  par- 
don, gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great 
kindness.  Neh.  ix.  17.  Christ  says,  "  All  manner  of 
sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men  :  but  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven 
unto  men."  Mat.  xii.  31.  "■  If  we  confess  our  sins, 
he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  ta 
tJeanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."     1  Joh.  i.  ?. 


Purchased  grace,  139 

These  are  only  a  few  of  a  great  many  passages,  which 
might  be  brought  to  prove  that  God  forgives  sin ;  but  if 
the  doctrine  of  purchasing  pardon,  or  of  making  satis- 
faction to  God  for  sin  be  true,  then  all  these  passages 
must  be  false. 

If  the  Father  and  Son  are  one  and  the  same  being,  or 
if  they  are  one  in  disposition  and  spirit,  the  Father  must 
be  altogether  as  merciful,  and  forgiving,  as  the  Son  is  ; 
and  the  Son  must  be  as  just,  and  quite  as  much  disposed 
to  punish  sinners,  as  the  Father  is. 

Christ  says,  "  At  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name  : 
and  I  say  not  unto  you  that  I  will  pray  the  Father  for 
you  ;  for  the  Father  himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have 
loved  me,  and  have  beheved  that  I  came  out  from 
God."  Joh.  xvi.  26,  27.  Here  he  shows  that  there 
was  no  need  of  purchasing  grace  from  the  father  be- 
'•ause  the  father  loves  men  as  well  as  the  Son  does. 


'40  VITISFACTIOX    TO    JUSTICE 


CHAPTER  X. 


OF  CimiST  MASIXC  SATISFACTION  TO  DIVINE  JC^TICE  FOR  SiMN'tK 


The  justice  of  God  requires  that  we  should  all  be 
just,  and  love  God  with  all  our  hearts,  and  our  neighbor 
as  ourselves.  Just  so  far  as  Christ  makes  us  just  and 
holy,  6o  far  divine  justice  is  satisfied  with  us,  and  no 
farther.  If  we  justly  owe  service  to  God,  his  justice 
never  will  be  saiistied  while  we  are  rebelUng  against 
hira.  If  we  have  transgressed  the  law  of  God,  his 
Justice  never  would  require  his  innocent  Soil  to  suffer 
its  penalty  in  our  room  :  because  justice  never  did  re- 
quire the  innocent  to  be  punished  instead  of  the  guilty. 
Solomon  says,  '•  //  is  not  good  to  accept  the  person  of 
the  wicked,  to  overthrow  the  righteous  in  judgement." 
Prov.  xviii.  5.  Again  he  says,  '*  He  that  justifieth  thu 
wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the  just,  even  they 
both  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord."  Prov.  xvii.  15, 
Cf  God  did  condemn  the  innocent  Saviour  to  bear  his 
wrath  instead  of  the  wicked,  and  does  now  justify  those 
wicked  persons,  because  Christ  was  punished  instead 
of  them,  lie  has  done  two  things  that  are  an  abomhiation 
to  himself.  God  says,  "  Keep  thee  far  from  a  false 
matter  ;  and  the  innocent  and  righteous  slay  thou  not ; 
for  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked."  Exod.  xxiii.  7. — 
Those  who  think  Christ  made  satisfaction  to  justice  for 
sinners,  think  that  God  will  justify  the  wicked  by  imput- 
ing Christ's  righteousness  to  them  ;  but  in  this  text  he 
says  he  will  not  justifjj  the  wicked. 

I  do  not  think  Christ  ever  made  any  satisfaction  to 
God  tor  sin.  To  say  that  satisfaction  has  been  made 
lo  God,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  he  has  been  injured, 
and  then  compensated  for  the  injury.  But  it  is  impos- 
sible for  any  being  in  the  universe,  either  to  injure  or 
compensate  the  Almighty.  Elihu  said  to  Job,  "  If  thou 
sinnest,  what  doest  thou  against  him  ?  or  if  thy  trans- 
gressions be  multinlied.  what  doest  thou  unto  him  ?  If 


OF    SATISFYING    JUSTICE.  2-i  1 

■iiou  be  ligbteoLis,  what  givest  thou  him  1  or  what  re'- 
ceiveth  he  of  thy  hand  t  Thy  wickedness  may  hurt  a 
man  as  thou  art,  and  thy  righteousness  may  profit  the 
Son  of  man."  Job.  xxxv.  6,  7,  8;  David  speaking 
in  aUusion  to  Christ,  says,  ''  0  my  soul,  thou  hast  said 
unto  the  Lord,  thou  art  my  Lord  :  my  goodness  extend- 
eth  not  to  thee  ;  but  to  the  Saints  that  are  in  the  earth.'* 
Psal.  xvi.  2,  3. 

The  doctrine  of  purchased  grace  is  inconsistent  with 
all  the  conditional  promises  in  the  Bible  ;  because  our 
complying  with,  or  rejecting  those  conditions,  can  have 
no  effect  on  the  purchase.  If  Christ  made  satisfaction 
.to  law  and  justice  for  all  my  sins,  both  original  and  ac» 
tual,  and  if  I  stand  justified  from  them  all  in  conse- 
quence of  his  active  and  passive  obedience  imputed  to 
me,  I  am  sure  of  heaven  whether  I  live  a  virtuous  or  a 
wicked  life.  It  will  not  do  to  say  he  paid  the  debt  for 
me  on  condition  that  I  w  ill  believe  it,  because  my  be- 
lieving, or  disbelieving,  can  have  no  effect  on  the  fact. 
[fit  is  false,  believing  it  will  not  make  it  true  ;  and  if  it  is 
true,  disbelieving  it  will  not  make  it  false.  This  doctrine 
makes  faith,  and  good  works,  if  not  useless,  at  least  su- 
perfluous, according  to  it  our  justification  before  God 
does  not  depend  on  faith,  nor  good  works,  but  wholly 
on  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us.  This 
doctrine  strikes  at  the  foundation  of  all  morality,  if  it  h^: 
true,  the  favor  of  God,  and  a  place  at  his  right  hand 
Cannot  be  obtained  by  faith  and  good  works,  but  de- 
pend entirely  on  things  beyond  our  control ;  things  that 
happened  long  before  we  came  into  existence. 

If  divine  justice  required  Christ  to  be  killed  instead 
'  'f  sinners,  it  certainly  could  not  condemn  the  men  who 
put  him  to  death,  seeing  they  only  did  what  justice  re- 
quired to  be  done.  But  Peter  charged  the  murder  of 
Christ  upon  the  Jews  as  a  very  wicked  action. 

If  Christ  made  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice  for  all 
ihe  sins  of  the  whole  human  family,  by  sufTering  as? 
their  surety  all  that  they  deserve  to  suffer  for  their  sins, 
then  the. whole  human  family  must^be  saved  ;  none  of 
ihem  can  ever  be  punished  by  law  or  justice  for  their 
-ins  ;  because  justice  never  can  require  a  debt,  that  has 
oeen  paid,  to  be  paid  over  again.  This  contradicts  the 
21 


212  OF  satisfVing  justici:. 

scripture ;  that  book  abundantly  teaches  that  those  -who 
die  in  their  sins  will  be  punished  in  hell  according  to 
their  crimes.  Some  people  to  evade  this  difficulty  as- 
sevt  that  the  Saviour  only  died  to  purchase  salvation  for 
apart  of  mankind,  and  that  those  who  go  to  hell  are  the 
reprobates  for  whom  no  purchase  was  made  :  but  the 
scripture  is  against  them  ;  that  book  plainly  proves  that 
he  died  for  all,  and  that  too  in  the  same  sense. 

Some,  to  evade  the  difficulty  of  universal  salvation, 
say  that  although  Christ,  as  our  surety,  paid  the  debt  to 
the  Father,  v/e  now  owe  it  to  the  surety,  and  if  we  do 
not  believe,  love,  and  obey  him,  he  will  send  us  to  hell. 
If  this  be  so,  I  ask,  what  good  has  his  suretiship  done 
us  ?  If  he  requires  us  to  obey  the  law,  or  suffer  the  pen- 
alty, the  debt  might  as  well  have  remained  in  the  hand 
of  the  original  creditor.  In  fact,  on  the  principles  ot 
Trinitarianism,  I  can  see  no  valuable  purpose  that  could 
be  effected  by  Christ's  suffering  as  a  substitute  instead 
of  sinners  ;  they  think  God  is  so  just  that  he  could  not 
forgive  sinners  without  taking  vengeance  on  an  inno- 
cent person  instead  of  them  :  and  that  Christ,  as  our 
surety,  redeemed  us  from  under  the  stroke  of  God's 
justice,  and  has  taken  us  into  his  own  protection  :  and 
then  they  inform  us  that  although  he  is  in  every  respect 
exactly  like  his  Father,  and  altogether  as  great  and  just 
as  he  is,  and  still  there  is  no  Mediator  between  us  and 
him.  If  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  the  same  identical 
"Being,  then  the  purchase  is  all  a  farce,  there  has  no  Me- 
diator interfered  between, God  and  us,  the  whole  tragedy 
of  Christ's  sufferings  was  nothing  but  God  acting  on 
himself.  But  if  Christ  is  a  distinct  Being  from  the 
Father,  and  coequal,  coessential,  and  coeternal  with 
liim,  and  in  every  respect  exactly  like  him,  then  there  is 
just  as  much  need  of  a  Mediator  between  him  and  us-, 
as  there  can  be  for  one  between  God  and  us. 

That  God  is  just,  can  be  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  forgive  sin.  It  is  no  violation  of  justice  for  the 
Governor  to  extend  mercy  to  the  guilty,  when  he  can  do 
it  agreeably  to  law,  and  without  injuring  any  person. 
IS  the  Governor  should  pardon  a  murderer,  that  he  knew 
would  continue  to  commit  murder,  it  might  be  an  act- 
of  inj^stke  to  the  conjmunitVj  but  if  he  oould  cliange 


OF    SATISFYIXG    JUSTICE.  243 

biffl,  and  make  him  a  useful  citizen,  then  it  would  be 
no  act  of  injustice  to  extend  mercy  to  him.  When  God 
changes  a  sinner,  and  writes  his  law  on  his  heart,  and 
makes  him  love  God  with  all  his  heart,  and  his  neighbor 
as  himself,  every  attribute  of  the  divine  Being  har- 
monizes in  his  pardon  and  salvation.  Justice  is  satis- 
fied, because  the  man  is  made  just,  and  renders  to  God 
and  man  the  service  that  justice  requires  of  him. — 
Mercy  is  satisfied,  because  the  man  has  received 
mercy  from  God,  has  the  principles  of  mercy  planted  in 
his  own  heart,  and  has  become  merciful  to  all  his  fellow- 
creatures.  Truth,  that  was  trampled  on  by  the  sinner, 
is  pleased  with  his  conversion,  because  she  has  gained 
a  complete  ascendency  over  his  mind-  Hohness  ac- 
cords with  this  change,  because  by  it  the  man  is  cleansed 
from  sin,  and  made  holy.  And  the  attribute  of  divine 
power  shines  far  more  conspicuously  in  the  plan  of  free 
grace,  than  it  possibly  can  on  the  principle  of  purchas- 
ed grace,  because  it  must  be  a  greater  display  of  God's 
power  to  bind  the  strong  man  of  sin,  spoil  his  armor, 
and  deliver  the  captive  soul  from  the  powers  of  dark- 
ness than  it  would  be  for  him  to  kill  an  innocent  unre- 
sisting person  instead  of  the  guilty. 

That  a  just  God  can  forgive  sin  without  taking  ven- 
geance on  a  substitute,  appears  from  this,  that  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  called  that  just  one,  does  forgive  sinners 
without  requiring  any  surety  to  suffer  his  vengeance  in 
their  room  and  stead. 

Jesus  did  not  purchase  the  power  to  forgive  sin  from 
his  Father:  God  gave  it  to  him.  He  says,  "Father, 
the  hour  is  come  :  glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  thee  :  As  thou  hast  given  him  power  over 
all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as 
thou  hast  given  him."  Job  xvii.  2.  The  following 
passage  shows  that  the  people  who  believed  on  him 
while  he  was  here  on  earth,  regarded  his  power  to  for- 
give sin  as  a  gift,  that  he  had  received  from  God.  "  But 
that  ye  may  know  that  the  son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins,  (then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the 
palsy,)  arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house. 
And  he  arose  and  departed  to  his  house.  But  when  the 
multitude  saw  ?/,  they  marvelled,  and  glorified  God. 


'244  OF    SATISFlINf,    JUSTICE. 

which  had  given  such  power  unto  men."  Mat.  ix.  6, 7. 
8.  Here  Saint  Matthew  does  not  say  that  God  sold 
the  power  to  forgive  sins  ;  but  says  he  gave  it. 

If  Christ  is  in  every  respect  as  great  as  the  Father, 
he  did  not  need  to  purchase  any  grace,  nor  blessing 
from  him,  because  he  had  as  much  of  every  thing  as  the 
Father  had  independently,  and  from  all  eternity.  If 
Triiiitarianism  be  true,  it  is  quite  as  absurd  to  say,  the 
Son  purchased  grace  from  the  Father,  as  it  would  be  to 
say  that  the  Father  purchased  grace  from  the  Son,  see- 
ing they  are  [both  equal  in  power,  Wisdom,  essence, 
and  eternity. 

If  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  and  infinitely  rich  in 
grace,  I  do  not  see  how  he  could  increase  his  stock,  by 
a  purchase  from  the  Father. 

The  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness  teaches  that 
Christ  purchased  eternal  life  for  us  ;  but  Saint  Paul 
affirms,  that  "  The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through. 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."     Rom.  vi.  23, 


SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS,.  235 


CHAPTER  XI. 


fHC    EVLDEN'CES    INT    FAVOR    OF    SURETY    RIGHTEOrSNESS,    £:j:.; 
COXSIDERED. 


I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  principal  argu- 
ments, and  scriptures,  that  are  most  commonly  brought 
tbrward  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness,, 
proxy  suffering,  purchased  grace,  &c.  &c.  The  fol- 
lowing passage  is  frequently  quoted  to  prove  these  doc- 
trines :  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried 
our  sorrows  :  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten 
of  God,  and  atflicted."  Isa.  hii.  4.  This  text  doe?; 
not  prove  that  he,  as  ouv  surety,  suffered  the  punish- 
ment that  was  due  to  our  sins.  It  only  means jhat  he 
suffered  for  our  sakes  in  order  to  reform  us  from  sin, 
and  make  us  good  people,  but  as  it  is  quoted  and  ex- 
plained in  the  New  Testament,  I  will  refer  to  the  pas- 
sage. "  When  tlie  even  was  come,  they  brought  unto 
him^  many  that  were  possessed  with  devils  :  and  he 
cast  out  the  spirits  with  his  words,  and  healed  all  that 
were  sick  :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  himself  took  our  infirmi- 
ties, and  bore  our  sicknesses:"  Mat.  vhi.  16,  17. — 
Tliis  is  the  way  that  Christ  bears  our  maladies,  both 
temporal  and  spiritual,  by  cleansing  us  from  iniquity, 
and  pai^oning  our  sins,  he  bears  them  away  from  us, 
as  the  scape-goat  figuratively  bore  the  sins  of  the  Is- 
raelites away  into  a  land  not  inhabited.  David  says* 
"  As  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west,  so  far  hath  he  re- 
moved our  transgressions  from  us."  Psal.  ciii.  12. 
•'  But  he  ivas  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities  :  the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  him  ;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All 
we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray ;  we  have  turned  every 
one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the 
iniquity  of  as  all."  Isa.  hii.  5,  6.  This  t^xt  proves  tfet 
21* 


24:0  SURETY    RIGIITEOUSXESS. 

God  laid  our  sins  on  Christ,  and  required  him  to  suffer 
for  us  ;  but  it  by  no  means  proves  that  he  suffered  as 
our  surety  to  reconcile  God  to  us,  and  fulfill  his  law  in- 
stead of  us.  When,  in  scripture,  the  guilty  are  said  to 
bear  their  own  sins,  they  were  commonly  charged  with 
'.he  guilt  of  liiem,  and  punished  accordingly  :  but  when 
the  innocent  were  said  to  bear  the  sins  of  the  guilty,  the 
the  meaning  is,  that  they  labored,  or  suffered  to  cleanse 
them  from  sin  and  turn  them  to  God.  In  th^s  sense 
Aaron  bore  the  iniquities  of  the  holy  things.  ''And  ii 
shall  be  upon  Aaron's  forehead,  that  Aaron  may  bear 
the  iniquity  ot  the  holy  things,  which  the  children  oi 
Israel  shall  hallow  in  all  their  holy  gifts  ;  and  it  shall  be 
always  upon  his  forehead,  that  they  may  be  acceptet] 
before  the  Lord."  Exod.-  xxviii.  38.  In  this  case 
Aaron  bore  the  iniquities  of  the  holy  gifts  not  to  affect 
the  mind  of  God,  and  reconcile  him  to  them,  but  that  thr 
children  of  Israel  might  be  accepted  before  the  Lord  : 
and  although  he  bore  iniquity,  he  v/as  not  charged  with 
guilt,  nor  was  he  punished  as  a  substitute  instead  of  the 
offenders.  In  the  following  passage  God  laid  on  Ezc 
kiel,  and  made  him  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  th( 
israel,  and  of  Judah.  "  Lie  thou  also  upon  thy  left  side, 
and  lay  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel  upon  it  :  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  the  days  that  thou  shalt  li( 
upon  it,  thou  shalt  bear  their  iniquity.  For  I  have  laid 
upon  thee  the  years  of  their  iniquity,  according  to  the 
number  of  the  days,  three  hundred  and  ninety  days  :  so 
shalt  thou  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel.  And 
when  thou  hast  accomplished  them,  lie  again  on  thy 
dght  side,  and  thou  shalt  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  house 
of  Judah  forty  days  :  I  have  appointed  thee  effth  day 
for  a  year."  Ezek.  iv.  4,  5,  6.  There  is  no  proof 
that  the  prophet  in  this  case  suffered  as  a  substitute,  to 
bear-  the  wrath  of  God  instead  of  the  Jews,  nor  that  he 
as  a  surety  had  undertaken  to  be  righteous  in  their  room 
and  stead  :  yet  the  scripture  as  plainly  says  that  God 
laid  their  iniquity  on  Ezekiel,  and  that  he  bore  it,  as  it; 
says  that  our  iniquities  were  laid  on  Christ,  and  that  he 
bore  our  sins.  No  doubt  but  Ezekiel  v/as  made  to 
suffer  all  this  hardship  for  the  Jews,  and  bear  their  sins. 
ia  order  to  reform  them,  aad  make  them  better  people 


SITRETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  24* 

\nd  ill  this  sense,  no  doubt,  Christ  bore  our  sins.— 
The  text  does  not  say,  that  the  Almighty  laid  on  him 
the  wrath  of  God,  that  was  due  to  us  for  our  sins,  and 
Ihat  by  his  stripes,  satisfaction  was  n:iade  to  divine  jus- 
tice for  us  :  but  it  says  that  our  iniquities  ^vere  laid 
Upon  him,  and  that  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed. 
I  I  will  now  use  a.  simple  comparison  to  elucidate  the 
subject.  Suppose  a  man,  living  on  the  frontier  in  the 
lime  of  Indian  war,  had  ten  children,  nine  of  whom  were 
young,  ignorant,  and  disobedient,  but  the  oldest  was  a 
son  twenty  five  years  old,  strong,  intelligent,  and  per- 
fectly obedient.  The  father  told  all  the  children  to  sta\ 
in  the  fort,  and  that  if  they  should  go  into  the  woods  thr 
Indians  would  catch  them  ;  but  the  nine  young  children, 
in  disobedience  to  theii-  father,  strayed  off  into  the 
woods,  and  v*ere  caught  by  the  savages,  who  took  them 
to  their  towns,  and  adopted  them  into  Indian  famihes. 
where  they  soon  contracted  the  habits,  learnt  the  speech, 
and  conformed  to  the  customs  of  those  barbarous  peo~ 
pie.  x\fter  peace  v/as  made  with  the  Indians,  and  the} 
no  longer  had  power  to  keep  the  children  by  force,  theii 
father  sent  his  oldest  son  away  to  the  Indian  towns  to 
reclaim  those  children  from  the  savages,  and  bring  them 
home  to  himself.  The  young  man,  after  enduring  the 
hardships  of  a  long  journey  through  a  trackless  deseif 
arrived  in  the  Indian  tov/n,  and  delivered  his  message 
to  the  children,  but  they  were  so  alienated  from  the 
manners,  and  ignorant  of  the  language  of  white  people, 
that  they  did  not  know  him,  but  accused  him  of  being 
an  impostor.  He  then,  in  order  to  convince  them  that 
he  was  not  an  Indian,  but  belonged  to  a  superior  race 
of  people,  wrote  several  letters,  made  a  v.atch,  con- 
structed several  musical  instruments  of  the  most  exqui- 
site workmanship,  and  played  on  them  most  skilfully, 
besides  performing  several  other  works  entirely  above 
the  capacity  of  Indians  ;  but  still  neither  his  words  nor 
his  works  would  convince  the  children,  a  majority  of 
them  continued  to  call  him  an  impostor,  and  told  him 
that  if  he  would  not  recant  the  profession  he  had  made, 
of  being  their  oldest  brother,  and  sent  by  their  father, 
they  would  kill  him.  But  as  he  well  knew  that  if  he 
^•hoiild  make  such  a  recaatationj  he  would,  by  so  doing. 


24S  SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS, 

make  himself  an  impostor  in  reality,  disobey  his  father 
tell  a  falsehood,  and  relinquish  the  only  means  his  father 
had  devised  to  reclaim  the  children  ;  and  knowing  that 
by  submitting  to  death  he  could  accomplish  their  re- 
covery, he  voluntarily  submitted  to  be  killed  :  and  by 
means  of  his  death,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
with  it,  he  destroyed  the  influence  that  the  Indians  had 
over  the  children,  reformed  them  from  heathenism,  and 
reconciled  them  to  their  father.  Now,  if  before  tiie 
young  man  started  on  his  mission  both  he  and  his  father 
knew  it  would  cost  him  his  life,  it  might  be  said  witli 
great  propriety  that  he  offered  up  his  life  as  a  sacrificf 
to  his  father,  because  he  suffered  in  obedience  to  him. 
And  as  the  sin  of  disobedience  to  their  father  first 
brought  the  children  into  captivity  ;  and  as  their  sinful 
conduct  to  him  caused  him  to  sufier  death,  it  might  be 
said  that  he  suffered  for,  or  on  account  of  their  sins. 
And  as  his  father  required  him  thus  to  sufler,  it  might 
be  said  in  truth  that  the  father  laid  on  him  the  iniquities 
of  all  the  children,  and  that  he  suffered  tor  their  sins. 
and  that  by  his  stripes  they  were  recovered  from  bondage 
and  misery.  But  it  could  not  be  said  in  truth  that  ho 
suffered  as  a  substitute  instead  of  them,  nor  that  he  boro 
the  wrath  of  his  father  in  order  to  reconcile  him  to  them. 

It  might  be  said  with  great  propriety,  that  the  son- 
gave  his  lite  for  the  children  that  he  redeemed  them  with, 
his  blood ;  and  that  he  redeemed  them  from  their  ene- 
mies to  their  father  :  but  it  would  be  very  improper  to 
say  that  he  redeemed  them  from  their  father's  justice, 
or  that  he  fulfilled  his  father's  commandments  in  their 
stead,  and  so  released  them  from  obligation  to  their  fa- 
ther's laws.  And  it  would  be  very  improper  to  say  that 
tills  son  bore  bis  father's  wrath,  or  sufTered  his  father's 
vengeance  to  induce  him  to  love  those  alien  children, 
because  it  was  the  father's  love  to  the  children  that  in- 
duced him  to  send  the  son,  and  nothing  that  the  son  did, 
or  suffered,  was  intended  to  afiect  the  father,  but  was 
entirely  designed  to  defeat  the  Indians,  and  reclaim  the 
children. 

But  says  one  is  it  not  unjust  for  God  to  require  Yds 
Son  to  drink  this  dreadful  cup  of  afflictions,  in  order  tc 
redeem  .sinners,  and  reconcile  thQm  to  Gecl  ?  I  answer 


SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  249 

5iO,  It  is  neither  unjust  nor  cruel  for  God  to  require  any 
of  his  creatures  to  do,  or  suffer  any  thing  that  he  enables 
ihem  to  do,  or  suffer,  provided  he  justly  rewards  them 
for  the  same.  I  hope  Trinitarians  will  not  be  offended 
with  me  for  calling  the  suffering  Jesus  a  creature,  be- 
cause they  themselves  do  not  believe  that  the  creator 
ever  could  suffer.  As  God  required  his  Son  to  do,  and 
suffer  more  than  he  required  of  any  other  person,  so  he 
gave  him  greater  strength,  and  a  richer  reward  than  he 
ever  gave  to  any  other  person.  And  when  Christ  was 
suffering,  he  had  a  view  to  this  reward.  Hence  Paul 
says,  "  Let  us  run  with  patience  the  race  set  before  us, 
looking  unto  Jesus,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith, 
who  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him,  endured  the 
cross,  despising  the  shame,  and  is  set  down  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  throne  of  God."  Heb.  xii.  1 ,  2.  The  fol^ 
lowing  passage  shows  that  God  rewarded  Christ  for  his 
sufferings  :  "  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and 
took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men  :  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore  God 
also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name 
which  is  above  every  name  ;  that  at  the  name  of  JesuK 
every  knee  should  bow,  o^  things  in  heaven,  and  things 
in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth;  and  that  ever} 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father."     Phil.  ii.  7—11. 

As  the  advocates  of  purchased  grace  commonly  cite 
the  three  last  verses  of  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah, 
to  support  their  system,  I  will  state  those  verses  separ- 
ately, and  show  that  no  such  doctrine  can  be  fairly 
proved  by  them.  "  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise 
liim  ;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief:  when  thou  shalt  make 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall 
prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall 
prosper  in  his  hand."  I  have  already  proved,  and  ever} 
candid  man  must  acknowledge,  that  it  is  very  possible 
for  a  father  to  put  his  Son  to  grief,  and  cause  him  to  en- 
dure  severe  afflictions  without  either  pouring  his  wrath 
on  him,  or  making  him  suffer  as  a  substitute  to  bear  the 
penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  the  suiltv.     If  the  fact  thai 


250  SURETY    niGIITEOUSNES^* 

God  afflicted  Christ  is  a  proof  that  his  sufferings  v»'ere  vt- 
carious,  then  the  sufferings  of  every  human  being  in  the 
world  must  be  vicarious,  because  God  afflicts  us  alL 
The  scripture  says,  "  Whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chas- 
teneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth.-' 
Heb.  xii.  6.  If  God  did  scourge  his  only  begotten  Son, 
he,  no  doubt  did  it  for  his  own  glory,  the  salvation  ot 
sinners,  and  the  good  of  Christ  himself.  In  conse- 
quence of  his  sufferings  he  was  better  qualified  to  be  a 
Mediator.  Hence  it  is  said,  "  For  it  became  him,  for 
whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in 
bringing  many  sons  io  glory,  to  make  the  Captain  ot 
their  salvation  perfect  through  sufferings."  Heb.  ii. 
10.  V.  IS,  "  For  m  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being 
tempted,  he  is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted.'- 
If  there  is  any  more  evidence  necessary  to  prove  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  tended  to  qualify  him  for  the 
great  work  he  had  undertaken,  it  is  furnished  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  :  "  Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when 
he  had  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications,  with  strong 
crying  and  tears,  unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him 
from  death,  and  was  heard  in  that  he  feared,  tliough  he 
were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which 
he  suffered  ;  and  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  him.'' 
Heb.  V.  7,  8,  9.  This  text  proves,  beyond  reasonable 
contradiction,  three  things:  1.  That  the  Saviour  felt 
himself  weak  and  dependant.  2.  That  by  his  suffer- 
ings he  learnt  obedience,  and  was  made  perfect.  And 
3.  That  in  consequence  of  his  obedience  and  perfect- 
ness  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all 
them  that  obey  him. 

That  the  soul  of  Jesus  was  made  an  offering  for  sin. 
i5  no  proof  that  he  suffered  to  expiate  the  wrath  of  God, 
or  to  make  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  sinners  ; 
because  the  sacrifices  under  the  law  never  were  intended 
for  that  purpose,  but  were  always  designed  to  heal., 
cleanse,  or  reconcile  the  things  or  persons  for  which,  or 
for  whom  they  were  offered. 

The  use  of  the  sacrifices  under  the  law,  and  the  de- 
sign of  Christ's  sacrifice,  are  both  explained  in  the  fol- 
JQwing  text :  ''  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goa{s% 


SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  2ol 

\m]  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkhng  the  unclean,  sancti- 
Heth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ;  how  much  more  shall 
the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  of- 
fered himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  con- 
science from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God?' 
Heb.  ix.  13,  14.  This  text  shows,  beyond  dispute, 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  intended  to  purge  us 
trom  sin,  and  make  us  holy,  and  never  was  designed  to 
change  the  mind  of  the  unchangeable  God.  Isaiah 
does  not  say  that  by  making  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin 
he  should  appease  the  wrath  of  God,  but  he  says^ 
"  When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  oftering  for  sin,  he 
shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the 
pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand."  And 
in  the  next  verse  he  says,  "  He  shall  see  of  the  travail 
of  his  soul,  o?id  shall  be  satisfied:  by  his  knowledge 
shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many  ;  for  he  shall 
bear  their  iniquities."  This  text  does  not  say  a  word 
of  justifying  us  by  imputed  righteousness,  nor  of  bear- 
ing the  wrath  of  God  in  our  room  and  stead.  The  way 
he  justifies  people  by  his  knowledge,  is  by  making  them 
wise  unto  salvation.  The  last  verse  of  this  chapter  re- 
fers to  the  reward  that  God  was  to  confer  on  the  Sa- 
viour for  his  sufferings.  "  Therefore  will  I  divide  him 
a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil 
with  the  strong  ;  because  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul 
unto  death,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  transgres- 
s'ors  :  and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  interces- 
sion for  the  transgressors."  There  is  a  wide  difi^erence^ 
between  bearing  the  sins  of  many,  and  bearing  the 
wrath  of  God,  the  scape-goat  bore  the  sins  of  the  Israel- 
ites, and  Ezekiel  bore  the  sins  of  the  Jews,  but  neitheii 
*?f  them  by  so  doing  bore  the  wrath  of  God. 


152 


EWISH    SACRIFICES- 


CHAPTER  XII. 


OF    THE    JEWISH    SACRIFICES, 


The  Jewish  sacrifices  were  not  substitutes  (a  beat 
the  penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  the  persons  for  whom 
Ihey  were  offered,  but  were  themselves  the  penalties 
which  the  law  required.  Their  government  was  both 
})olitical  and  religious :  and  the  sacrifices  were  fines, 
taxes,  free-will  offerings,  and  offerings  to  purge  from 
disease,  and  external  pollutions.  When  a  fine,  the  va- 
lue of  the  sacrifice  was  proportioned  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  crime  for  which  it  was  offered  ;  and  when  the  of- 
fender fulfilled  the  requisitions  of  the  law,  he  stood  ac- 
quitted, as  when  our  law  fines  a  man  for  a  crime,  and 
he  pays  the  fine,  the  law  accounts  him  honest.  When 
a  sacrifice  was  required  as  a  tax,  it  was  levied  accord- 
ing to  their  polls  and  property.  They  had  to  pay  for, 
or  redeem  every  male  child  with  a  kid,  or  a  lamb  if  able, 
if  not  able,  with  a  pair  of  turtle  doves,  or  two  young 
pigeons.  They  also  had  to  offer  the  first  fruits  of  their 
ground,  and  the  firstlings  of  their  flocks  ;  and  redeem 
an  ass  colt  with  a  lamb.     Exod.  xiii.  12,  13. 

These  sacrifices  went  to  support  their  government ; 
"because  the  Levites,  who  for  the  most  part  administered 
it,  had  no  inheritance  of  land  among  the  other  tribes, 
but  were  allowed  to  live  on  those  offerings. 

If  the  sacrifices  under  the  law  were  designed  to  bear 
^he  wrath  of  God  in  the  room  of  the  ones  for  whoni 
they  were  offered,  then  God  must  have^been  so  angry 
at  a  child,  or  an  ass  colt,  for  being  born,  that  he  pour- 
ed out  his  wrath  on  a  lamb  instead  of  it.  The  hea- 
then frequently  boasted  of  appeasing  the  wrath  of  their 
gods  by  sacritices  ;  but  it  is  impossible  that  the  sacrifi- 
ces under  the  law  ever  could  have  been  designed  to 
change  the  mind  or  disposition  of  the  unchangeabfe 
God. 


Jewish  SACRincES.  io^ 

Some  people  say  that  the  sacrifices  under  the  laM' 
'ere  all  types  of  Christ,  and  that  the  people  who  offered 
them  could  not  be  profited,  unless  they  offered  them  with 
iaith,  that  Christ  the  great  antitype  would  at  some  future 
day  be  sacrificed  as  the  surety  of  sinners  to  appease  the 
wrath  of  God,  an.d  make  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice 
in  their  room  and  stead.  One  reason  I  have  for  not  be- 
lieving that  these  sacrifices  were  types  of  Christ  bearing 
tlie  wrath  of  God,  is,  that  they  were  frequently  offered 
for  things  that  were  not  objects  of  divine  wrath.  Sacri- 
fices of  atonement  were  made  for  the  plague  of  lepros}', 
for  child-bearing,  for  the  tabernacle,  the  holy  place  and 
the  altar,  and  for  a  leprous-house.  We  have  no  autho- 
rity to  believe  that  the  Jews  regarded  their  sacrifices 
as  typical  of  the  death  of  their  Messiah,  because  thev 
did  not  believe  that  he  would  die.  When  Christ  signi- 
fied to  the  Jews  what  death  he  should  die  ;  *'  The  peo- 
pie  answered  him,  we  have  heard  out  of  the  law  tha; 
Christ  abideth  for  ever  :  and  how  sayest  thou,  the  Son 
of  man  must  be  lifted  up  ?  Who  is  this  Son  of  man  V 
Joh.  xii.  34.  Moses  never  told  them  that  Christ  should 
die.  If  they  did  not  believe  he  would  die,  they  could 
not  have  offered  their  sacrifices  with  a  view  to  his  death  ; 
and  it  is  still  more  improbable  that  they  regarded  theiii 
as  types  of  Christ  bearing  the  wrath  of  God  m  the  room 
and  stead  of  a  wicked  world.  In  Exod.  xiii.  14,  15, 
Moses  directed  the  Jews  to  explain  the  sacrifices  to 
their  children :  he  says,  "  And  it  shall  be,  when  thy  Son 
Ksketh  thee  in  time  to  come,  saying,  what  meaneth  this  i 
that  thou  shalt  say  unto  him,  by  strength  of  hand  the 
Lord  brought  us  out  irom  Egypt,  from  the  house  of 
bondage :  and  it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh  would 
hardly  let  us  go,  that  the  Lord  slew  all  the  first  born  iix 
the  house  of  Egypt,  both  the  first  born  of  man,  and  the 
iirst  born  of  beasts  :  therefore  I  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  all 
that  openeth  the  matrix,  being  males  ;  but  all  the  first 
horn  of  my  children  I  redeem."  If  the  sacrifices  were 
really  designed  to  lead  the  Jews  into  a  belief  that  Jesu? 
tJhrist  would  die  as  a  substitute,  to  suffer  the  divine  veu" 
^eance  in  their  room  and,  stead,  is  it  not  reasonable  to 
:^upposG  that  proses  would  have-  told  them  so  I 


254  JEWISH    SACRIFICES* 

Every  advocate  of  surety  righteousness  in  the  pre- 
sent  day,  if  he  treats  on  the  Jewish  sacrifices  at  all,  feek 
conscience  bound  to  inform  his  hearers  that  they  were 
types  of  Christ  bearing  the  wrath  of  God  in  the  room 
and  stead  of  sinners. 

When  we  administer  the  Lord's  supper,  we  are  care- 
ful  to  tell  the  communicants  what  the  bread  and  wine 
represent.  Tjiere  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Moses 
gave  the  Jews  all  the  instruction  they  needed  relative 
to  the  use  and  signification  of  their  sacrifices,  yet  he 
never  once  told  them  that  they  were  typical  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ :  and  he  was,  if  possible,  still  farther 
from  telling  them  that  those  offerings  represented  the 
outpouring  of  God's  wrath  on  his  own  Son  instead  of 
the  law-breakers.  "  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers, 
a  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of 
your  brethren,  like  unto  me  ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all 
things,  whatsoever  he  shall  say  unto  you.  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  thai  every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that 
prophet  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people." 
Acts  iii.  22,  23.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  principal 
object  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world  was  to  die  as  a 
substitute,  in  order  to  bear  the  wrath  of  God  in  the  law- 
place  of  sinners,  the  latter  part  of  this  passage  would  have 
(Expressed  the  design  of  his  coming  better,  if  it  had 
been  written  thus  :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  God 
will  pour  out  his  wrath  on  that  prophet,  and  kill  him  in 
the  room  and  stead  of  the  people."  Or,  if  it  is  essen- 
tially necessary  for  us  to  believe  that  doctrine,  such  a 
declaration  certainly  would  have  been  made  by  some 
one  of  the  inspired  writers. 

The  Paschal  lamb  was,  no  doubt,  a  type  of  Christ ; 
but  it  is  impossible  that  it  could  have  been  intended  as 
a  figure  of  his  bearing  the  wrath  of  God  in  the  room  and 
:^ead  of  sinners,  because  it  was  not  a  sin-offering ;  it 
•>vas  neither  killed  by  a  priest,  nor  burnt  on  an  altar.  It 
•u'as  designed  for  a  feast,  and  was  killed,  cooked,  and 
eaten  by  the  people  themselves. 

The  feast  of  the  passover  was  not  intended  to  make 
an  atonement  for  sin,  but  was  one  of  the  means  by 
>vhich  God  delivered  the  Jews  from  bondage,  and  it  is 
>v^ll  known  that  their  bondage  never  was  charged  upOT> 


JEWISH    SACRIFICES.  255 

Them  as  a  sin.  God  himself  explains  the  use  of  this 
feast  in  the  following  words  :  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  when  your  children  shall  say  unto  you,  what  mean 
you  by  this  service]  that  ye  shall  sa>,  it  is  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Lord's  passover,  who  jpassed  over  the  houses  of 
the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  wi»en  he  smote  the 
Egyptians,  and  delivered  our  houses."  Exod.  xii.  26, 
27.  If  God  had  wanted  the  Jews  to  believe  that 
the  Paschal  lamb  was  a  fisure  of  Christ  suffering  as  a 
substitute  in  the  law-place  of  sinners,  he  certainly  would 
have  told  them  so,  especially  if  he  kn^;w  that  a  belief  in 
that  doctrine  was  essential  to  salvation  :  but  as  he  did 
not  tell  them  so,  and  as  the  doctrine  is  no  where  taught 
in  the  Bible,  we,  of  course,  have  no  authority  from  God 
to  believe  it.  It  would  have  been  as  easy  for  the  Lord 
to  have  told  them,  to  tell  their  chiidreii  that  this  lamb 
was  a  figure  of  Christ  bearing  the  wrath  of  God  in  the 
room  of  shiners,  as  it  was  for  him  to  tell  them  what  he 
did. 


256  SUJRETY   RIGHTEt)rsNBSJ?> 

CHAPTER  XII, 

{TJie  same  subject  coniinued.'j 


Some  people  try  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  surety  righc- 
eousness  by  the  relation  that  Christ  bears  to  his  church  - 
ihey  think  that  as  he  bears  the  relation  to  his  people  o1 
a  husband  to  his  wile,  he  of  course  was  bound  by  law 
and  justice  to  pay  their  debts  ;  and  therefore  they  con- 
clude that  he  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  theii' 
room  and  stead.  This  argument  is  inconclusive,  be- 
cause there  is  no  law  in  this  country,  nor  is  there  any 
just  law  in  any  country,  to  punish  a  man  with  corporeal 
punishment,  or  with  death  for  the  crimes  of  his  wife.  If 
a  wife  should  commit  theft,  the  law  would  neither  whip-, 
nor  imprison  her  husband  for  it.  And  if  she  should 
commit  a  crime  worthy  of  death,  it  would  be  illegal  to 
hang  her  husband  instead  of  her. 

If  the  husband  should  be  ever  so  wilhng  to  die  in  tht* 
loom  of  his  wife,  it  would  neither  alter  the  law,  nor  the 
principle  of  justice  :  if  he  should  be  hung  instead  of  her, 
both  the  judge,  who  passed  the  sentence,  and  the  sher- 
iff that  executed  it  would  be  condemned  by  the  law  as 
jBurderers.  The  abettors  of  proxy  suffering,  and  suret\ 
righteousness,  tell  us  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  supreme, 
self-existent  God  :  if  this  be  true,  he  could  not  have  in- 
volved himself  in  any  debt  by  marrying  the  church,  see- 
ing she  owed  nothing  to  any  other  person  but  himself. 
It  was  nothing  more  than  a  creditor  marrying  his  debtor  ; 
m  consequence  of  the  union  he  would  be  bound  to  for- 
give a  debt,  but  not  to  pay  one. 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  tell  us  that  the  law  ol" 
God  is  infinite,  that  the  penalty  annexed  to  it  is  also  infin- 
ite, and  that  because  sin  is  the  transgression  of  that  infin- 
ite law,  it  is  an  infinite  evil,  deserving  an  infinite  punish- 
ment :  and  that  to  rescue  sinners  from  under  the  infinite 
penalty  of  this  infinite  law,  it  was  necessary  that  an  in- 
iiuit?  being  should  undertake,  as  their  surety,  to  suffer 


SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  257 

this  infinite  penalty  in  their  stead  ;  and  that  Christ  being 
both  an  infinite  God,  and  a  finite  man,  became  their 
surety,  and  paid  that  infinite  debt  for  them,  by  suffering 
the  infinite  penahy  in  their  room  and  stead. 

I  have  several  reasons  for  not  believing  these  no- 
tions— sin  cannot  be  infinite,  because,  it  is  the  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  and  is  an  act  of  a  creature  ;  and  no 
finite  being  can  put  forth  an  infinite  act.  Whether  we 
explain  sin  as  an  act,  or,  as  a  quality  of  the  mind,  it  is 
of  creature  origin,  and  no  finite  being  can  produce  that 
Mhich  is  infinite. 

It  is  true  that  Ehphaz  the  Temanite  said  to  Job,  "  h 
not  thy  wickedness  great  ?  and  thine  iniquities  infinite  V- 
Job  xxii.  5.  I  think  this  was  a  hyperbolical  expres- 
sion, and  that  by  it  the  Temanite  only  meant  that  Job's 
iniquities  were  very  numerous.  Such  expressions  are 
common  in  the  present  day,  but  are  never  designed  to 
be  understood  in  the  strictest  sense  of  their  import.  In 
the  official  accounts  of  campaigns,  battles,  &c.  we  hear 
it  said  of  officers  that  they  rendered  infinite  service  : 
and  we  frequently  hear  it  said  of  very  rich  people,  that 
they  are  infinitely  rich :  no  doubt,  but  the  meaning  of 
these  expressions  is~  that  those  services,  or  riches  are 
very  great ;  and  undefined,  or  incalculable  :  and  in  this 
sense  we  speak  of  the  infinite  mood  in  grammar,  be- 
cause it  is  used  to  express  things  indefinitely,  or  in  an 
unlimited  sense. 

This  expression  of  Eliphaz  by  itself,  will  not  do  to 
establish  an  important  doctrine,  because  v,e  have  no 
proof  that  he  spoke  by  the  inspiration  of  God.  I  am 
far  from  thinking  that  every  word  that  passed  between 
Job  and  his  friends  in  this  dispute,  should  be  taken  for 
the  word  of  God,  because  when  they  were  contradicting 
one  another,  we  know  they  could  not  all  be  right.  Go5 
ended  their  dispute  by  saying  to  Job,  "  Who  is  this  that 
darkeneth  counsel  with  words  without  knowledge  i'* 
Job.  xxxviii.  2.  To  this  charge  Job  pleads  guilty  m 
the  following  confession  :  "  Who  is  he  thathideth  coun- 
sel without  knowledge  ?  therefore  have  I  uttered  that  1 
understood  not ;  things  too  wonderful  for  me,  which  I 
knew  not."  Chap.  Ixii.  3.  The  following  address  of 
the  Lord  to  Eliphaz,  shows  how  much  credit  ;s  due  to 
22* 


2o&  SfREXV   RIGHTEOUSNESS* 

the  opinions  he  advanced  in  this  argument :  '•  The  Lor^ 
said  to  Eliphaz  the  Temanite,  My  wrath  is  kindled 
against  thee,  and  against  thy  two  Iriends  :  for  ye  have 
not  spoken  of  me  the  thing  that  is  right  as  my  servant 
Job  hath.-'  Job  xhi.  7.  Now,  if  Job  uttered  word;* 
without  knowledge,  and  if  Eliphaz  was  still  farther  froru 
ilie  truth  than  he  was,  I  cannot  see  the  propriety  of 
quoting  him  to  prove  any  doctrine,  unless  there  were 
other  texts  to  agree  with  what  he  says.  In  this  dispute 
Job  said  he  was  innocent,  and  Eliphaz  said  his  iniqui- 
ties were  infinite  ;  and  God  decided  that  Job  spoke  the 
more  correctly,  therefore  I  conclude  that  sin  is  not  in- 
iinite. 

Paul  says,  "  But  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did 
much  more  abound."  Rom.  v.  20.  If  sin  is  infinite^ 
grace  must  be  ranch  more  than  infinite.  If  sin  were  in- 
finite, it  could  not  be  expiated.  We  cannot  possibly 
conceive  how  Christ,  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  could 
put  away  that  which  is  infinite. 

It  is  impossible  that  Christ  could  sufier  an  infinite 
penalty,  or  pay  aniniinite  debt,  because,  if  he  is  a  crea- 
ture, and  a  dependant  being,  it  was  his  duty  to  serve 
God  with  all  the  powers  he  had,  and  of  course  he  could 
do  no  works  of  supererogation  to  be  imputed  to  others. 
If  he  is  a  finite  being,  he  could  not  pay  an  infinite  debt, 
nor  sufier  an  infinite  penalty.  And  if  he  is  the  infinite 
God,  he  could  not  suffer  at  all,  nor  could  he  pay  any 
debt,  because  every  thing  in  the  universe  was  his  own. 
and  he  was  the  creditor  to  whom  the  whole  debt  was 
due.  How  could  the  same  person  be  both  debtor  and 
crcditor,  plaintiff' and  defendant  in  the  same  suit  ? 

If  Christ  is  the  infinite  God,  and  did  become  the 
surety  of  sinners,  and  sufier  that  infinite  penalty  in  their 
i'oom  and  stead,  then  the  infinite  God  must  have  entered 
as.  surety  of  sinners  to  himself  and  then  killed  himself 
in  their  room  and  stead,  m  order  to  pay  himself  the  debt" 
which  they  owed  him. 

If  his  humanity  was  too  weak  to  suffer  an  infinite  pe-^ 
*ialty,  and  if  his  divinity]could  not  suffer  at  all,  how  could 
416  pay  it  1  Some  people,  to  avoid  this  difiiculty,  say. 
that  his  divinity  was  the  altar  on  which  his  humanity 
^vas  sacrificed,  and,  as  the  altar  sanctilieth  the  gift,  so 
-fhe  divine  sanctilieth  Uie  humaa  uatcre,  and  made  i^ 


s:frety  righteousness.  259 

equal  to  that  infinite  penalty.  As  this  appears  to  be  thr- 
last  shift  with  the  advocates  of  surety  righteousness,  1 
will  show  its  fallacy.  To  sanctify,  is  to  cleanse,  purge. 
t)r  make  holy  any  person  or  thing  in  its  kind  ;  but  the 
thing  so  sanctified  is  not  thereby  changed  to  something 
of  another  kind.  When  they  offered  a  lamb  on  the  altar 
it  was  changed  from  a  common  to  a  holy  use,  but  not 
from  a  lamb  to  an  ox.  If  the  law  required  a  heifer,  it 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  a  kid,  though  it  were  offerexl 
on  the  best  altar  in  the  Temple.  The  divinity  of  Christ 
might  sanctify  his  humanity,  and  change  it  t\om  a  com- 
mon to  a  most  holy  and  important  use,  but  could  never 
make  it  an  uncreated,  infinite,  self-existent  being ; 
therefore  the  humanity  never  could  pay  that  infinite  pe- 
nalty. "When  Christ  was  on  the  cross  he  cried,  "  My 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?"  If  the  divine  nature 
forsook  him  before  he  died,  how  could  the  human  nature 
alone  pay  that  infinite  penalty  ? — I  wish  the  reader  to 
understand  that  I  do  not  believe  that  Christ  is  God  in 
the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  but  I  am  now  arguing  on 
the  supposition  that  Trinitarianism  is  true,  and  my  ob- 
ject is  to  show  that  surety  righteousness  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Trinity  doctrine. 

The  advocates  of  Purchased  Grace  say,  it  took  th€ 
\\\i(j\e  of  the  Divinity  to  support  him  under  the  infinite 
sufferings  that  he  had  to  endure,  in  order  to  pay  that  in- 
finite debt,  which  sinners  had  contracted  by  the  infinite 
evil  of  sin.  If  this  be  true,  there  could  have  been  none 
of  the  Divinity  engaged  in  punishing  him  :  and  if  so,  he 
has  suffered  nothing  from  the  hand  of  God  on  account 
-of  sinners. 

According  to  the  system  that  I  am  opposing,  it  mus! 
have  been  the  gift  that  sanctified  the  ahar  instead  of  the 
altar  sanctifying  the  gift ;  because  the  advocates  of  this 
system  say  that  his  humanity,  w  hich  was  the  gift,  being 
sacrificed  on  his  Divinity,  which  was  the  altar,  appeas- 
ed the  divine  Being,  mad«  satisfaction  to  his  justice, 
and  rendered  him  propitious  to  the  human  family. 

I  have  often  heard  the  advocates  of  surety  righteous- 
ness preach,  and  have  also  seen  it  stated  in  some  of 
their  wrhings,  that  the  fall  of  Adam  caused  a  jar,  or  as 
Isaac  Anibiose  states  it^  a  holy  contsatiQa  among  tH^ 


260  SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

attributes  of  God.  Truth  said,  cut  the  sinner  down. — 
Mercij  said,  spare  him.  Justice  said,  the  sinner  must, 
die,  or  the  law  is  dishonored.  Then  Wisdom  proposed 
a  plan  to  satisfy  Truth,  please  JMercy,  appease  Justice, 
honor  the  Law,  and  save  the  sinner ;  and  Poiver  exe- 
cuted it.  The  substance  of  this  plan  is,  that  Christ 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  sinners. 

It  appears  to  me,  that  nothing  but  folly  could  devise, 
or  cruelty  execute  such  a  plan  as  this.  According  tu 
it,  Trw^/i,  which  said  man  must  die,  was  satisfied  to 
see  him  not  die :  JSIercy,  who  always  protects  the  in- 
nocent, was  pleased  to  see  him  suffer  instead  cf  th(,= 
guilty :  Justice,  that  called  for  the  death  of  the  sinner, 
\va3  pleased  to  see  him  escape  v»ith  impunity  :  the  law- 
was  honored  by  acquitting  the  person  it  condemned, 
and  condemning  the  innocent  Jesus,  who  never  trans- 
gressed it. 

According  to  this  system,  some  of  God's  attributes 
must  have  been  wrong,  for  we  all  know  that  when  two 
are  entirely  opposed  to  each  other  in  any  thing,  they 
cannot  both  be  right.  It  certainly  is  very  improper  to 
say,  that  the  attributes  of  God  ever  were  opposed  to 
each  other,  because  if  Gcd  ever  was  divided  against 
himself,  according  to  Christ's  own  maxim,  he  could  not 
have  stood,  but  must  have  had  an  end.  He  says, 
"  Everv  kingdom  divided  airainst  itself  is  brouoht  to 
desolation  ;  and  every  city,  or  house,  divided  against 
itself  shall  not  stand."  "  And  if  Satan  rise  up  against 
himself,  and  be  divided,  he  cannot  stand,  but  hath  an. 
end."  Mat.  xii.  25.  Mark.  iii.  26.  If  God  exists  iu 
three  persons,  and  one  of  those  persons  was  wroth  with 
the  other,  and  pom'ed  out  his  wrath  on  him  till  he  suf- 
fered an  innnite  degree  of  punishment,  then  God  was 
cenainly  divided  against  himself.  If  God  felt  a  mer- 
ciful disposition  towards  sinners,  and  at  the  same  time 
a  wrathful  disposition,  Vvhich  would  punish  them  with- 
out mercy,  he  must  have  been  divided  in  his  own  mind 
on  the  subject.  And  if  the  plan  of  surety  righteous- 
ness has  settled  his  mind,  then  his  mind  has  changed 
twice  ;  first,  when  he  got  angry  at  man  for  sinning ; 
and,  secondly,  when  he  was  reconciled  to  him  by  the 
sufferings  of  Christ. 


St^HETY  RIGHTEOUSNESS.  261 

2ecli.  xiii.  7,  is  frequently  brought  to  prove  that  God 
\)unished  Christ  as  a  substitute  in  the  room  of  sinners* 
^'  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  Shepherd,  and  against 
the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts  i 
smite  the  Shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered  ; 
and  I  will  turn  my  hand  upon  the  little  ones."  This 
text  shows,  that  Christ  suffered  by  the  order  of  God, 
that  is,  that  God  gave  him  up  to  die  for  the  world,  but 
if  that  is  a  proof  that  he  suffered  as  a  surety,  then  each 
of  his  disciples  must  have  suffered  as  a  surety,  because 
the  same  text  says,  "  I  will  turn  my  hand  upon  the  lit- 
tle ones."  And  as  I  have  before  observed,  if  the  bare 
fact  that  he  suffered  by  the  order  of  heaven  is  a  proof 
that  his  sufferings  were  vicarious,  then  the  sufferings  of 
the  whole  human  family  must  be  vicarious,  because  we 
all  suffer  by  the  appointment  of  heaven.  It  has  been 
asserted  that  the  sword  mentioned  in  this  text  was  the 
sword  of  God's  justice  ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  the 
blessed  Jesus  fell  under  the  sword  of  justice. 

I  think  his  death  was  a  most  unjust  murder.  Peter 
accused  the  Jews  of  killing  him  with  wicked  hands. 
No  doubt  but  the  sword  alluded  to  in  the  above  text 
was  the  wicked  people,  who  murdered  the  Lord :  hence 
David  says,  "  Arise,  0  Lord,  disappoint  him,  cast  him 
down  :  deliver  my  soul  from  the  wicked,  which  is  thy 
sword."     PsaL  xvii.  13. 

On  that  night  in  which  Christ  was  betrayed  into  the 
hands  of  sinners  this  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  "  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  all  ye  shall  be  offended  because 
of  me  this  night :  for  it  is  written,  I  will  smite  the  Shep- 
herd, and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered."  Mark,  xiv.  27. 
Mat.  xxvi.  31.  Thus  Christ  himself  explains  this 
s^vord  to  be  wicked  men  ;  and  it  was  not  till  he  fell  into 
their  hands  that  his  Httle  flock  was  scattered  from  him. 
"When  David  was  foretelling  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in 
the  twenty-second  Psalm,  he,  no  doubt,  alluded  to  the 
same  sword  where  he  says,  "  Deliver  my  soul  from  the 
sword  ;  my  darling  from  the  power  of  the  dog."  From 
this  text  it  appears,  that  to  dehver  him  from  the  sword, 
by  which  he  was  put  to  death,  was  to  deliver  him  from 
the  power  of  the  dog  ;  therefore  if  Christ  died  by  the 
.■^word  of  God's  justice,  God  must  be  a  dog. 


262  SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

The  following  passage  has  been  much  relied  on  io 
prove  the  doctrine  of  surety  righteousness.  *'  Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us  :  for  it  is  written  cursed  is  every 
one  that  hatigeth  on  a  tree  :  that  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ; 
that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  spirit  through 
faith."  Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  If  the  bare  fact  that  Christ 
was  hung  on  a  tree  is  a  proof  that  he  was  cursed  with 
the  wrath  of  God  in  the  room  and  stead  of  sinners, 
then  the  two  thieves  must  have  borne  his  wrath  in  the 
law-place  of  sinners,  because  they  both  suffered  in  the 
same  manner  that  he  did.  Historians  inform  us  that 
Saint  Peter  was  crucified,  but  that  is  no  proof  that  he 
was  cursed  by  divine  justice  in  the  law- place  of  sin- 
ners. If  the  above  text  means  that  every  individual  hi 
the  world,  that  might  he  hung  on  a  tree,  should  be 
cursed  by  God  and  die  under  his  wrath,  then  thousands 
of  innocent  people,  and  hundreds  of  the  holy  martyr.s 
must  have  died  under  the  wrath  of  God  ;  because 
many  of  them  have  been  put  to  death  by  hanging  on  a 
tree.  I  suppose  that  by  the  apostle's  expression  in  the 
above  text,  he  only  meant  that  Christ  by  being  hung  on 
a  tree,  was  made  a  curse,  or  an  execration,  in  the  popu- 
lar sense  of  the  word.  Whatever  was  cursed  under 
the  law,  was  unclean,  and  unfit  to  be  sacrificed  ;  and  if 
Christ  was  cursed  properly  by  the  law  of  God,  it 
would  not  accept  him  as  a  sacrifice.  They  who  say 
that  Jesus  was  cursed  by  God,  do  not  speak  in  the 
spirit,  for  Paul  says,  "  Wherefore  I  give  you  to  under- 
stand, that  no  man  speaking  by  the  spirit  of  God  call- 
eth  Jesus  accursed."  1  Cor.  xii.  3.  The  law  curses 
us  for  sin,  and  when  Christ  redeems  us  from  sin,  he 
redeems  us  from  being  cursed  by  the  law.  The  text 
does  not  say  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  in  order  to 
make  satisfaction  to  law  and  justice  for  us.  But  it 
says,  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us  to  redeem  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  and  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ;  thai 
we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  spirit  through  faith. 


HRIST^S   PURCHASE,  260 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


OF   THE   PURCHASE   MADE    BY    CHRIST. 


Paul  says,  "  For  ye  are  bought  with  a  price  ;  there- 
fore glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which 
are  Gods."  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  Again  he  says,  "  Feed 
the  Church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood."     Act.  xx.  2S. 

That  Christ  purchased  us  we  all  agree  ;  but  we  dif- 
fer both  respecting  the  means  by  which  we  are  purchas- 
ed, and  the  power  from  which  we  are  redeemed.  The 
advocates  of  Purchased  Grace  think  that  he  bought  us 
trom  under  the  stroke  of  divine  justice  ;  and  that  he  did  it 
by  bearing  the  wrath  of  God.  and  suffering  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  as  our  surety  instead  of  us.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  advocates  of  Free  Grace  deny  that  he  is  our 
surety.  They  think  that  God  the  Father  is  altogether 
as  merciful  to  the  human  Family,  and  as  httle  disposed 
to  be  wroth  with  them,  as  Jesus  Christ :  hence,  they 
conclude,  that  the  Saviour  did  not  bear  the  wrath  of  God 
instead  of  us,  nor  redeem  us  from  under  his  justice,  nor 
iiis  law.  But  they  hold,  that  he  redeems  his  people 
trom  sin,  and  misery,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and 
also  from  the  grave  :  and  that  the  means  which  he 
employs  to  effect  this  redemption  are,  the  Gospel,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  divine  Power,  by  which  he  saves  them 
from  sin,  and  will  raise  them  from  the  dead. 

The  fact  that  Christ  purchased  us,  is  no  proof  that  he 
.suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  a  surety  instead  of  us  ; 
because  the  word  purchase,  in  its  most  extensive  signi- 
tication,  means  to  acquire,  get,  or  obtain  any  thing  by 
©ne's  own  exertion,  and  does  not  always  signify  the 
paying  of  an  equivalent  :  hence,  Paul  says,  "  They 
that  have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  purchase  to 
themselves  a  good  degree,  and  great  boldness  in  the 
faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  1  Tim.  iii.  13.  The 
deacons,  who  purchase  this  good  degree,  neither  suffcy 


■264  Christ's  pttrchasSj, 

as  substitutes,  nor  pay  an  equivalent  for  it.  David 
says  God  purchased  the  Jews,  and  redeemed  them, — 
'« Remember  thy  congregation,  ivhich  thou  hast  pur- 
chased of  old  ;  the  rod  of  thine  ^inheritance,  which  thou 
has  redeemed  ;  this  mount  Sion,  wherein  thou  hast 
dwelt."  Psal.  Ixxiv.  2.  "  Thou  in  thy  mercy  hast 
led  forth  thy  people  which  thou  hast  redeemed." — "  By 
the  greatness  of  thine  arm  they  shall  be  as  still  as  a 
stone ;  till  thy  people  pass  over,  O  Lord,  till  the  people 
pass  over  ivhich  thou  hast  purchased."  Exod.  xv.  13, 
16.  By  redeeming  and  purchasing  the  Jews  from 
Egypt,  we  are  not  to  understand  that  God  became  theii- 
surety  and  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  their  room 
and  stead,  nor  that  he  gave  the  Egyptians  any  equiva- 
lent for  them. 

I  will  bring  a  few  more  texts  to  prove,  that  to  pur- 
»:hase,  to  buy,  or  to  redeem,  according  to  the  import  of" 
these  phrases  in  the  scripture,  does  not  always  mean 
that  the  purchaser,  or  redeemer,  paid  an  equivalent,  op 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  as  a  surety,  instead  of 
the  persons  whom  he  redeemed.  "  The  Lord  brought 
you  out  with  a  mighty  hand,  and  redeemed  you  out  of 
the  house  of  bondmen,  from  the  hand  of  Pharoah,  King 
of  Egypt."  Deut.  vii.  8.  "  Do  ye  thus  requite  the 
Lord  1  0  foolish  people,  and  unwise  I  is  not  he  thy 
Father  that  hath  bought  thee  ?"  Deut.  xxxii.  6.  Here 
the  Lord  redeemed,  and  bought  the  Jews  from  Pharoali, 
yet  he  did  not  become  their  surety,  nor  suffer  the  pen- 
alty of  any  law  for  them. 

God  says,  "  Come  ye,  buy  and  eat ;  yea,  come, 
buy  wine  and  milk  without  money,  and  without  price." 
Isa.  Iv.  1.  Jesus  Christ  says,  "  I  counsel  thee  to  boy 
<if  me  gold  tried  in  the  fire,  that  thou  mayest  be  rich  : 
and  white  raiment,  that  thou  mayest  be  clothed."  Rev. 
iii.  18.  Solomon  says,  "Buy  the  truth  and  sell  it  not ; 
also,  wisdom  and  instruction,  and  understanding." — 
Prov.  xxiii.  23.  In  each  of  these  purchases  the  thing 
is  obtained  without  paying  God  any  price  for  it.  God 
said  to  his  people,  "Ye  have  sold  yourselves  for  noughi;i 
and  ye  shall  be  redeemed  without  money.  Isa.  Iii.  3. 
By  reading  this  chapter  through,  it  is  easily  seen  that 
ihe  Piord  in  this  text  alhides  to  th&  rede;nptiou  made  by 


CHRIST'S   PURCHASE*  565 

Cimst,  That  he  can  redeem  his  Church  without  be« 
coming  a  surety  to  suffer  the  penahy  of  the  law  instead 
of  them,  appears  from  the  following  text :  '*  Zion  shall 
be  redeemed  with  judgement,  and  her  converts  with 
righteousness.  And  the  destruction  of  the  transgress* 
ors,  and  of  the  sinners,  shall  be  together,  and  they  that 
forsake  the  Lord  shall  be  consumed."     Isa.  i.  27,  28. 

Christ  says  he  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.  Mat. 
XX.  28.  But  that  does  not  prove  that  he  died  as  a  sub- 
stitute to  bear  the  wrath  of  God  instead  of  sinners,  be- 
cause the  word  ransom  sometnnes  only  means  a  deliv- 
erance ;  as  in  Jer.  xxxi.  11,  "For  the  Lord  hath  re- 
deemed Jacob  and  ransomed  him  from  the  hand  of  him 
that  was  stronger  than  he."  And  in  Hos.  xiii.  14,  I 
will  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  the  grave  ;  I  will 
redeem  them  from  death."  By  ransoming  his  people 
from  their  enemies,  and  from  the  power  of  the  grave, 
we  are  not  to  understand  that  the  Almighty  suffered  as 
a  surety  in  their  room  and  stead,  nor  that  he  paid  to  their 
enemies,  and  to  the  grave,  an  equivalent  for  them.  In 
both  these  passages  the  word  random,  simply  signifies  a 
deliverance.  Solomon  says,  '•  The  wicked  shall  be  a 
ransom  for  the  righteous,  and  the  transgressor  for  the 
tlpright."  Prov.  xxi.  IS.  The  wise  man  did  not  mean 
that  the  wicked  should  fulfil  the  law  in  the  room  and 
.stead  of  the  righteous. 

"When  God  delivered  his  people  from  their  enemies, 
he  was  said  to  purchase,  redeem,  or  ransom  them  ; 
and  when  he  gave  their  enemies  power  over  them,  it 
was  said  of  him  that  he  sold  them.  "  And  the  anger  of 
the  Lord  was  hot  against  Israel,  and  he  delivered  them 
uito  the  hands  of  spoilers  that  spoiled  them,  and  he  sold 
them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies  round  about." 
Judg.  ii.  14.  "  The  anger  of  the  Lord  was  hot  against 
Israel,  and  he  sold  ihem  into  the  band  of  Cushan-risha- 
ihaim,  king  of  Mesopotamia."  Chap.  iii.  8.  Moses 
says,  "  How  should  one  chase  a  thousand,  and  two  put. 
ten  thousand  to  flight,  except  their  Rock  had  sold 
jhem  ]"  Deut.  xxxii.  30.  It  is  said  of  the  Jews  that 
ihey  sold  themselves  to  do  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord. 
2  Kings  xvii.  17,  And  Paul  says  of  himself,  while  in 
23 


266  Christ's  purchase, 

a  natural  state,  that  he  was  carnal,  sold  under  sin. 
Rom.  vii.  14. 

These  passages  sufficiently  prove  that  no  conclusive 
argument  can  be  brought  in  favor  of  surety  righteous-- 
iiess  from  those  texts  that  say  Christ  puchased,  re- 
deemed, or  bought  us  ;  seeing  those  phrases  frequently 
occur  where  no  surety  righteousness  could  have  been 
intended. 

I  will  now  bring  some  passages  to  show  what  he  re- 
deems his  people  from  :  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption 
through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  Col. 
i.  14.  Here  redemption  is  explained  to  be  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  The  apostle  does  not  tell  us  that  it  con- 
sists  in  making  satisfaction  to  God  for  our  sins.  ''  In 
whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace.'- 
Ephes.  i.  7.  If  this  redemption,  or  forgiveness  of  sins, 
had  been  purchased  from  God,  Paul  would  not  have 
said  it  was  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace  :  he,  no 
doubt,  would  have  said  that  Christ  purchased  it  by  bear- 
ing his  [the  Father's]  wrath.  Peter  inform.s  us  what  he 
redeems  us  from.  "  Ye  were  not  redeemed  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  silver  and  gold  from  your  vain  con- 
versation received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers  ;  but 
with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ."  1  Pet.  i.  18,  19. 
In  the  following  text  the  propliet  informs  us  what  was  to 
be  effected  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  "  As  for  thcc  also, 
by  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  have  sent  forth  thy 
prisoners  out  of  the  pit  wherein  is  no  water."  Zech. 
ix.  11.  If  the  prophet  had  known  that  the  main  object 
TO  be  effected  by  the  blood  of  Christ  was  to  make  satis- 
faction to  law  and  justice  instead  of  sinners,  he  would 
have  told  it.  '•  U'herefore  Jesus  also,  that  he  might 
sanctify  the  people  with  his  own  blood,  suffered  without": 
rhe  gate."  Heb.  xiii.  12.  Here  vre  are  informed  that 
:he  object  of  shedding  his  blood  was  to  sanctify  the  peo- 
ple. The  four  living  creatures,  and  the  four  and  twenty 
elders  whom  John  saw  round  about  the  throne  of  God, 
did  not  say  that  Christ  had  redeemed  them  from  GocK 
nor  from  his  justice  ;  but  "  They  sang  a  new  song,  say- 
ing, thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  th^ 
seals  thereof:  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  has^  redeemed 


REDEMPTION.  26*1 

>is  to  God  with  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and 
tongue,  and  people,  and  nation."  Rev.  v.  9.  Thus 
we  see  those  dignified,  and  highly  exalted  personages, 
who  sit  nighest  to  the  throne  of  God,  give  Christ  no 
praise  for  vicarious  sufferings  nor  surety  righteousness. 
If  a  satisfaction  made  by  him  to  law  and  justice  in  their 
room  and  stead  was  the  real  cause  of  their  salvation, 
they  would,  no  doubt,  have  told  it ;  but  instead  of  saying 
that  Christ  redeemed  them/rom  God's  justice^  they  say 
he  redeemed  them  to  God. 

In  Heb.  ii.  14,  15,  the  writer  undertakes  to  tell  us  for 
what  purpose  Christ  took  on  him  human  nature.  "  For- 
asmuch then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh 
and  blood,  he  also  himself  likevWse  took  part  of  the 
same  ;  that  through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had 
the  power  of  death,  that  is  the  devii  ;  and  dehver  them- 
who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  life-time  sub- 
ject to  bondage."  Here  we  are  not  told  that  he  died  as 
our  surety  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  us. 
but  we  are  expressly  informed  that  his  death  was  de- 
signed to  destroy  our  spiritual  enemy,  the  devil,  and 
deliver  us  from  subjection  to  bondage  through  fear  of 
death. 

In  the  14th  and  15th  verses  of  the  third  chapter  of 
John,  Christ  explains  the  design  of  his  death.  "  And 
as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even 
so  must  the  Sen  of  man  be  Hfted  up  ;  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life." 
The  brazen  serpent  was  not  intended  to  bear  the  wrath 
of  God,  nor  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  instead  of  the 
Jews,  who  were  then  suffering  it  for  their  own  disobe- 
dience :  but  it  was  lifted  up  to  cure  them  of  the  bite  of 
the  fiery  serpent.  Even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be 
lifted  up.  The  phrase,  even  so,  implies  that  Christ  was 
to  be  lifted  up  on  the  cross  for  a  similar  purpose  ;  that 
is,  to  cure  us  of  sin,  the  moral  poison,  which  we  received 
from  that  old  serpent  the  devil.  Hence  the  Saviour 
tells  us  that  the  design  of  his  being  lifted  up  on  the 
Gross  w^as  ''  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  If  the  main  object  of 
his  death  was  to  appease  the  wiath  of  God,  or  to  suffer 
the  penalty  of  his  law  instead  of  sinner,?,  it  would  have 


26S  SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS, 

been  as  easy  for  him  to  have  told  it,  as  it  was  for  him 
to  say  what  he  did  say.  But  if  that  had  been  the  case, 
the  hfting  up  of  Christ  on  the  cross  would  have  beeri 
designed  for  a  purpose  very  dissimilar  to  that  for  which 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness.  That 
serpent  was  not  lifted  up  to  procure  the  mercy  of  God 
to  the  Jews,  but  it  was  his  mercy  that  procured  it,  and 
caused  it  to  be  lifted  up  to  deliver  them  from  misery 
and  death.  Even  so,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not 
intended  to  procure  the  love  of  God  to  the  human  fami- 
ly, but  on  the  contrary  it  was  the  love  which  he  had  for 
them,  that  caused  him  to  give  his  Son  to  die  for  the'-r 
salvation.  This  is  proved  by  the  words  of  Christ  in  the 
very  next  verse,  where  he  says,  *'  For  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life." 

1  Pet.  ii.  24,  has  frequently  been  brought  to  prove  the 
doctrine  of  surety  righteousness.  "  Who  his  own  self 
bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  that  we,  being 
dead  to  sins,  should  hve  unto  righteousness  :  by  whose 
stripes  ye  were  healed."  This  text  does  not  establish 
the  doctrine,  because,  I  have  already  proved  from  scrip- 
ture that  many  innocent  persons  have  borne  the  sins  of 
the  wicked  without  either  being  charged  with  the  guilt 
of  their  crimes,  or  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law  in 
their  room  and  stead.  Besides,  it  appears  from  the 
text  that  he  bore  our  sins,  not  to  affect  God,  nor  to  fulfil 
Iiis  law  instead  of  us  ;  but  that  we  being  dead  to  sins, 
should  live  unto  righteousness;  and  that  by  his  stripes 
2ve  might  be  healed.  If  the  doctrine  of  surety  righteous- 
ness be  true,  Peter  would  have  expressed  the  design  of 
his  sufferings  much  better  by  writing  it  thus  :  "  Who 
his  own  self  bare  the  wrath  of  God,  that  was  due  to  our 
sins,  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  that  God  being  dead 
to  wrath,  should  live  unto  mercy :  by  whose  stripes  the 
breach,  or  jar,  that  had  been  made  among  the  attributes 
of  God  by  the  fall  of  man,  was  healed." 

The  following  texts,  with  several  others  of  the  same 
import  have  been  brought  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  surety 
righteousness  :  "  Because  Christ  also  suffered  for  us." 
1  Pet.  ii.  21 .    "  Forasmuch  then  as  Christ  hath  sufferei* 


SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS.  "  269 

for  us  in  the  flesh,  arm  yourselves  hkewise  with  the 
same  mind."  Chap.  iv.  1.  Some  of  the  advocates  ol' 
this  doctrine  have  argued  that  the  word  /or,  as  it  is  ap- 
phed  in  the  above  texts,  means  w  the  room  and  stead  oj] 
and  hence  conclude,  that  when  it  is  said  that  Christ  suf- 
fered for  lis,  it  means  that  he  suffered  as  our  surety, 
instead  of  us  :  but  this  argument  is  inconclusive,  be- 
cause the  word  for  is  frequently  applied  in  the  same 
manner,  where  no  proxy  sufferings,  nor  surety  righte- 
ousness could  have  been  intended,  which  is  evident  from 
the  following  passages  :  "  Greet  Priscilla  and  Aquila, 
ray  helpers  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  who  have  for  my  life  laid 
down  their  own  necks."  Rom.  xvi.  3,  4.  "  There- 
fore  I  take  pleasure  in  infirmities,  in  reproaches,  in  ne- 
cessities, in  persecutions,  in  distresses  for  Christ's  sake." 
2  Cor.  xii.  10.  Although  Priscilla  and  Aquila  laid  dovrn 
their  necks  for  Paul's  life,  and  he  suffered  for  Christ's 
sake,  it  is  no  proof  that  they  were  beheaded  in  his  room 
and  stead,  nor  that  he  suffered  as  a  surety  instead  oi' 
Christ.  "  For  unto  you  it  is  given  in  the  behalf  of 
Christ,  not  only  to  believe  on  him,  but  also  to  suffer  for 
his  sake."  Phil.  i.  29.  To  suffer  for  his  sake  in  this 
text,  cannot  mean  to  suffer  as  a  surety  instead  of  him. 
"  Therefore  I  endure  all  things  for  the  elect's  sake.'- 
2  Tim.  ii.  10.  Paul  did  not  mean  by  this,  that  he  en- 
dured God'g  wrath  as  a  surety  instead  of  the  elect,  **  1 
desire  that  ye  faint  not  at  my  tribulations  for  you.'' 
Ephes.  iii.  13.  "Who  now  rejoice  in  my  sufferings 
for  you."  Col.  i.  24.  "  For  I  will  show  him  how- 
great  things  he  must  suffer  for  my  name's  sake."  Acts 
ix.  16.  "  I  am.  ready  not  to  be  bound  only,  but  also 
to  die  at  Jerusalem  for  the  nam.e  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'- 
Acts  xxi.  13.  On  this  point  I  could  cite  many  more 
passages,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  when  it 
is  said  of  Christ  that  he  died  for  lis,  it  does  not  mean 
that  he  died  as  a  surety  instead  of  us. 

I  have  frequently  heard  the  following  passnge  quoted 
to  prove  that  Christ  bore  the  wrath  of  God  instead  of 
sinners.  "  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from  Edom,  with 
dyed  garments  from  Bozrah  1  this  that  is  glorious  in  his 
apparel,  travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength  ?  I 
that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save.  Wherefore 
23* 


270  SURETY    RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  garments  like  him 
that  treadeth  in  the  wine-fat  1  I  have  trodden  the  wine- 
press alone  ;  and  of  the  people  there  was  none  with  me  : 
for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and  trample  them 
in  my  fury ;  and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  m\ 
garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment.  For  the  day 
of  vengeance  is  in  my  heart,  and  the  year  of  my  re- 
deemed is  come.  And  I  looked,  and  there  was  none  to 
help  ;  and  I  wondered  that  there  was  none  to  uphold  ; 
therefore  mine  own  arm  brought  salvation  unto  me,  and 
my  fury,  it  upheld  me.  And  I  will  tread  down  the  peo- 
ple in  mine  anger,  and  make  them  drunk  in  my  fury, 
and  I  will  bring  down  thek  strength  to  the  earth."  Isa. 
Jxiii.  1—6. 

I  do  not  think  that  this  alludes  to  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  at  all.  In  this  place  it  appears  he  was  coming 
from  Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah:  but 
Christ  suifered  in  Judea,  ai  Jerusalem.  In  this  passage 
he  was  glorious  in  his  apparel,  travelling  in  the  great- 
ness of  his  strength  :  but  when  he  suffered,  he  first 
wore  a  purple  robe,  and  a  crown  of  thorns,  and  was  then 
nailed  to  the  cross  quite  naked  ;  nor  did  he  appear  in 
the  greatness  of  his  strength,  but  as  a  feeble  lamb  dumb 
before  the  shearer,  he  was  led  to  the  slaughter,  and  cru- 
cified through  weakness.  In  this  text  he  trod  the  wine- 
press, and  trampled  down  the  people,  and  -stained  his 
garments  with  their  blood.  When  he  suflered,  he  was 
mangled  and  abused  by  his  enemies,  and  his 'garments 
were  stained  with  his  own  blood.  In  the  above  pas- 
sage, he  says,  "  The  day  of  vengeance  is  in  mine  heart, 
and  the  year  of  my  redeemed  has  come.  The  day  he 
suffered  was  not  a  day  of  vengeance  in  which  he  trod 
down  the  people  in  his  anger,  trampled  them  in  his  fury. 
and  brought  down  their  strength  to  the  earth,  nor  had 
the  year  to  deliver  his  redeemed  from  all  their  troubles 
then  come. 

I  think  this  text  alludes  to  the  time  when  Christ  will 
appear  as  the  destroyer  of  his  enemies  :  when  he  will 
sit  on  a  cloud  whh  a  golden  crown  on  his  head,  and  a 
sharp  sickle  in  his  hand,  with  which  he  will  reap  the 
vine  of  the  earth,  when  her  grapes  are  fully  ripe, 
and  cast  it  into  the  great  wine-press  of  the  wrath  o\ 


SURETY   RIGHTEOUSNESS.  27J 

God.  Rev.  xiv.  14.  19.  All  the  Lord's  enemies  are 
represented  under  the  character  of  Edom  ;  and  Bozrah 
was  the  metropolis  of  Edom.  This  country  was  inha- 
bited by  the  descendants  of  Esau,  and  is  sometimes 
called  Idumea.  And  when  Christ  shall  tread  the  wine- 
press of  the  fierceness  and  wrath  of  Almighty  God,  till 
blood  shall  come  out  of  it  to  the  horse-bridles,  by  the 
space  of  a  thousand  and  six  hundred  furlongs, ^wilfbe  the 
time  when  the  indignation  of  the  Lord  shall  be  upon  all 
nations,  and  his  fury  upon  all  their  armies.  And  the 
mountains  shall  be  melted  with  their  blood :  for  the 
sword  of  the  Lord  shall  be  bathed  in  heaven,  and  it  shall 
come  down  upon  Idumea,  and  upon  the  people  of  his 
curse  to  judgement.  For  then  he  will  have  a  sacrifice 
at  Bozrah,  and  a  great  slaughter  in  the  land  of  Idumea. 
Isa.  xxxiv.  2.  5.  6. 

It  is  not  a  little  strange  that  those  passages  which 
say  he  trod,  and  that  he  treadeth,  the  wine-press  of  the 
fierceness  and  wrath  of  Almighty  God,  should  be 
brouorht  to  prove,  that  instead  of  treading,  he  was  trod- 
den in  the  wine-press  of  God's  wrath.  If  they  had 
brought  the  text  that  says,  Moses  slew  the  Egyptian  to 
prove  by  it  that  the  Egyptian  killed  Moses,  it  would 
have  been  fully  as  much  to  the  point.  Yet  these  scrip- 
tures are  quite  as  well  adapted  to  the  purpose  as  any 
which  can  be  brought  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  appeas- 
ed, reconciled,  or  in  any  other  respect  changed  the  un- 
changeable God. 

I  have  heard  those  who  believe  in  surety  righteous- 
ness ask  the  following  question.  If  we  do  not  regard 
Christ  as  our  surety,  and  trust  to  his  righteousness  be- 
ing imputed  to  us,  how  are  we  to  understand  those 
scriptures,  that  speak  of  trusting  in  Christ,  and  believ- 
ing in  Christ  ?  In  answer  to  this  question,  I  will  just 
observe,  that  to  beUeve,  or  trust  in  Christ,  does  not  ne- 
cessarily imply  that  we  must  regard  him  as  a  surety  to 
be  righteous  instead  of  us.  The  Jews  professed  to  be- 
lieve in  Moses  :  and  Christ  says,  they  trusted  in  him  ; 
and  were  accused  by  him.  Joh.  v.  45,  46.  And  the 
Apostles  said,  that  "Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city 
them  that  preach  him."  Act.  xv.  21.  By  these  pas- 
sages we  understand,  that  they  believed  hh  trusted  in, 


272  SURETY    RIGIITEOUSNESS^ 

were  accused  by,  or  preached,  the  law  of  Moses.  So 
I  think  that  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  trust  in  him,  is  to 
believe  in  his  gospel,  and  trust  in  its  promises. 

I  do  not  think,  however,  that  the  difference  between 
the  pious  advocates  of  purchased  grace  and  free  grace 
is  essential,  or  even  so  great  as  some  people  suppose  : 
they  agree  in  all  the  essential  points.  They  both  be- 
lieve that  Christ  is  the  only  way  of  salvation,  and  that 
in  border  to  be  saved  by  him,  they  must  believe,  and 
obey  his  gospel  ;  but  they  differ  in  this  ;  the  advocates 
of  purchased  grace  teach  that  Christ  purchased  grace 
from  God  for  sinners  by  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law 
in  their  room  and  stead  :  while  those  who  believe  in 
free  grace  affirm  that  it  is  freely  given  to  us  by  GotI 
through  Christ. 

The  former  think  that  although  they  are  very  unwor- 
thy, yet  they  arc  justified  by  works,  not  their  own,  bu? 
the  works  of  their  surety,  which  he  performed  instead  of 
them :  while  the  latter  believe  that  God,  for  his  own 
name's  sake,  freely  justifies  them  by  his  grace.  The 
former  think  that  Christ  purchased  heaven  for  them, 
and  that  they  can  therefore  claim  of  God  the  Father  an 
inheritance  in  glory  on  the  ground  of  merit,  the  full 
price  having  been  paid  to  him  for  it  by  their  surety  in 
their  room  and  stead  :  while  those  who  believe  in  frec^ 
grace  think  that  they  will  in  time  and  eternity,  ascribe 
all  their  happiness  to  the  free  unmerited  grace  of  God. 

But  at  the  same  time  those  who  believe  in  purchased 
grace  must  feel  as  much  beholding  to  Christ  for  their 
happiness,  as  the  others  do  to  God.  And  as  they  gen- 
erally think  Christ  is  the  supreme  God,  and  do  not  be- 
lieve that  any  person  purchased  the  favor  of  Christ  for 
them,  it  amounts  to  nearly  the  same  thing,  both  parties 
expect  to  be  saved  by  the  unmerited  grace  of  the  su- 
preme God. 


273 


There  is  one  error  in  the  preface  of  this  book  ■whici.i 
I  wish  the  reader  to  correct.  In  page  6th,  line  6th 
from  the  top,  omit  the  following  words  :  and  before  I 
had  seen  a  concordance.  The  mistake  escaped  my  at^ 
tention  till  the  first  form  was  worked  off.  The  fact  is, 
I  never  did  see  a  concordance  till  some  years  after  I 
professed  rehgion,  nor  had  I  the  use  of  <jne  till  after  I 
got  in  possession  of  my  present  views,  but  still  I  had 
seen  one  before  I  wrote  them  for  the  press. 

There  is  one  more  error  in  the  book  that  I  wish  to 
correct,  and  that  is  respecting  the  copy  right.  I  at 
first  had  no  intention  to  have  it  secured,  but  as  some 
of  my  friends  insisted  on  it,  I  with  reluctance,  gave  my 
consent.  Since  that  time  I  have  been  fully  convinced 
that  it  would  be  wrong  for  me  to  prevent  any  person 
from  printing  this,  or  any  other  good  book.  I,  there- 
fore, avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  inform  the  public 
that  any  person  may  print  the  book  that  pleases.  1 
hereby  renounce  all  my  claim  to  the  copy  right,  and 
wish  the  public  to  consider  the  book  the  same  as  if  the 
copy  right  had  never  been  secured. 

July  29,  1839.  WILLIAM  KINKADE. 


VART  Vil 


OF  FAiTIJ. 


tllAPTEK  I. 


A    FEW    REMARKS    ON    THE    DOCTRISE     OF     FAITH, 

.  Faith  is  a  rclyinj-on  evidenoe.  On  the  doctrine  oi 
taith  there  are  two  opinions  among  Christians.  The 
advocates  of  one  opinion  teach  that  it  is  the  immediate^ 
or  direct  gift  of  God,  wrought  in  the  creature  by  tho 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  others  also  believe 
that  Faith  is  the  gift  of  God,  but  they  think  he  gives  ii 
to  them  mediately,  or  indirectly  ;  that  is,  they  think  he 
gives  it  to  them  through  the  means  of  evidence.  The 
former  teach,  that  no  person  can  act,  saving  faith,  tiii 
ufter  he  is  quickened,  and  renevved  by  the  Holy  Spirit : 
while  the  latter  affirm,  that  God  has  given  sufficient  evi- 
dence in  his  gospel  to  enable  all  rational  persons,  who 
hear  it,  to  believe  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls. 

If  we  cannot  believe  till  after  we  are  changed  by  the 
Spirit,  all  our  seeking  previous  to  that  time  must  be 
sin,  because  Paul  says,  "  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith^ 
is  sin."  Rom.  xiv.  23.  We  must  have  faith  before 
we  can  be  benefitted  by  the  word  of  God,  because  the 
scripture  says,  "  The  word  preached  did  not  profit  them, 
not  beinij  mixed  with  faith  in  them  that  heard  it."  Hcb, 


276  or  FAITH. 

iv.  2.  If  we  must  be  converted  by  the  Spirit  before  \vc 
can  act  faith,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  must  dwell  in  us  be- 
fore we  believe  there  is  any  Holy  Spirit ;  because  if 
we  do  not  believe  the  gospel,  we  do  not  believe  in  Fa- 
ther, Son,  nor  Spirit.  Some  preachers  teach  that  faith 
is  the  immediate  gift  of  God,  wrought  in  us  by  Almighty 
power,  and  that  until  this  gift  is  bestowed  by  an  act  of 
God,  it  is  as  impossible  for  us  to  believe,  as  it  is  to^make 
a  world,  and  then,  as  if  they  thought  we  have  power  to 
l)eheve  the  \vord  whenever  we  hear  it,  they  quote  scrip- 
ture to  make  us  believe  their  doctrine. 

Christ  says,  '*  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  con- 
demned :  but  he  that  beheveth  not  is  condemned  al- 
ready, because  he  hath  jiot  believed  in  the  name  of  the 
only-begotten  Son  of  God."  Job.  iii.  18.  The  Sa- 
viour makes  faith  the  condition  of  salvation,  but  if  we 
say,  he  has  given  all  who  hear  the  gospel  power  to  be- 
lieve it,  those  preachers  accuse  us  of  heresy  :  so  the 
gospel  condemns  us  for  not  believing,  and  they  condemn 
us  for  believing  that  we  can  believe.  ^Vhen  Christ  was 
on  earth, some  bigotted  professors  agreed  among  them- 
selves that  if  any  maa  believed  on  him,  he  should  be 
cast  out  of  the  synagogue,  and  some  very  strenuous 
professors  in  the  present  day,  are  in  the  habit  of  expel- 
ing,  and  debarring  from  church  privileges,  all  who  say 
they  can  believe  in  him  :  and  at  the  same  time  that  they 
deny  us  the  power  of  believing  God,  they  require  us  to 
believe  their  system,  or  else  be  excommunicated.  Christ 
nor  his  apostles  never  told  their  hearers,  that  it  was  as 
impossible  to  beUeve  them  as  to  make  a  world. 

If  an  ambassador  from  England  to  America,  after 
delivering  a  very  important  message  to  the  heads  of  our 
Government,  would  tell  them  that  it  is  impossible  for 
them  to  believe  him,  they  would  think  he  knew  what  he 
said  was  untrue,  or  else  they  would  think  he  was  a  fool. 
(Some  people  say  the  word  of  God  is  a  dead  letter,  and 
of  no  more  use  to  us  till  after  we  are  converted  than  a 
«;ommon  history  :  but  Christ  says,  "  The  words  that  I 
speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are  life."  Job. 
vi.  63.  Is  not  my  word  like  as  a  fire,  saith  the  Lord, 
and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the  rock  in  pieces  1" 
Jer.  xxiii.  29.     In  Rom.  iii.  30,  faith  is  represented  ^s 


01^  FAITH.  377 

being  tlie  ins{?umental  cause  of  justification  :  hence, 
Paul  says,  "  Seeing  it  is  one  God,  which  shall  justifylthe 
circumcision  by  faith,  and  the  uncircumcision  through 
faith."  As  every  cause  precedes  its  effect,  faith  must 
precede  justification,  because  it  would  be  impossible 
for  us  to  be  justified  by  faith,  if  we  had  none  ;  besides 
Christ  says  of  the  unbeliever,  that  he  is  condemned  aU 
readiji  of  course  he  cannot  be  justified. 

The  scripture  says,  we  are  born  of  the  word.  "  Be- 
ing born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth,  and  abideth 
forever."  1  Pet.  i.  23.  That  this  ivord,  of  which  the 
saints  are  said  to  be  born  again,  is  the  written  testimo- 
ny, appears  from  the  25th  verse  of  the  same  chapter, 
'"*  And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the  gospel  is  preached 
unto  you."  This  shows  that  faith  must  be  exercised 
before  we  can  experience  regeneration,  because  it  is 
evident  that  we  must  believe  the  word  before  we  can  be 
born  of  it.  Paul  says,  the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God 
to  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth.  Rom.  i.  16. 
David  says,  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  convert- 
ing the  soul,  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  making- 
wise  the  simple."  Psal.  xix.  7.  This  proves  that  we 
must  believe  before  we  are  converted,  because  if  we  are 
converted  and  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  before  we  can 
believe  the  law  and  the  testimony,  tliey  neither  convert., 
Hor  make  us  wise. 

Faith  is  the  condition  of  the  New  Covenant,  and  if  it  be 
out  of  our  power  to  act  faith,  the  New  Covenant  is  more 
grievous  than  the  old  ;  because  it  condemns  us  for 
not  doing  an  impossibility.  When  the  jailor  asked 
Paul  and  Silas  what  he  must  do  to  be  saved,  they  an* 
Bwered  :  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved."  Acts  xvi.  30,  31,  34.  The  jailor 
believed,  and  was  baptized  the  same  hour.  If  they  had 
told  him  that  it  was  as  impossible  for  him  to  believe  in 
Christ  as  it  was  to  make  a  world,  but  that  he  must  wait 
God's  good  time,  and  that  if  he  was  one  of  the  elect 
number,  God  would,  when  his  ov»'n  time  come,  send  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  change  his  heart,  and  then,  and  not 
,titt  then,  be  would  be  able  to  believe  in  Chiist,  it  is  nor,^ 

2.^ 


27S  OF    FAITH. 

at  all  probable  that  he  would  have  got  religion  thai 
night. 

Any  one  that  is  born  again,  knows,  loves,  and  fear? 
God.  If  we  must  be  bom  again  before  we  can  act 
faith,  then  we  .nust  know,  love,  and  fear  God,  before 
we  believe  in  him.  "  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible 
to  please  him  :  for  he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe 
that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  dili- 
gently seek  him."  Heb.  xi.  6.  To  be  converted  be- 
fore we  act  faith,  is  to  get  religion  when  we  are  neither 
coming  to,  pleasing,  nor  obeying  God,  for  without  faith 
it  is  impossible  to  do  either.  If  we  cannot  believe  till 
after  we  are  changed  by  the  spirit,  all  our  seeking  pre- 
vious to  that  time  must  be  sin,  "  For  whatsoever  is  not 
of  faith  is  sin."  Rom.  xiv.  23.  Therefore,  according 
to  this  doctrine,  if  we  tell  a  sinner  to  seek,  and  he  shall 
find,  it  is  the  same  as  to  say,  "  Sin,  and  you  shall  be 
saved." 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  argue,  that  if  sinners 
are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  that  it  is  therefore  im- 
possible for  them  to  act  faith  till  they  are  made  alive, 
and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for,  say  they,  how  can 
a  dead  man  put  forth  a  living  act  ?  To  this  I  answer, 
that  although  sinners  are  dead,  in  a  moral  point  of  view, 
yet  they  are  not  dead  in  an  intellectual  sense  :  they  arc 
still  rational  and  accountable  beings,  capable  of  believ- 
ing evidence,  and  of  obeying  God,  or  rebelling  against 
him.  If  they  were  too  dead  to  believe,  they  would  be 
too  dead  to  disbelieve.  It  is  as  much  of  a  living  act 
to  reject  testimony,  when  it  is  offered,  as  it  is  to  receive 
it.  It  frequently  requires  greater  mental  exertion  to 
reject  than  to  receive  testimony  ;  because,  when  it  is 
offered  to  us,  we  are  furnished  with  the  evidence  ready 
made  up,  and  presented  to  our  minds,  but  in  order  to 
disbelieve,  we  have  have  to  exert  our  minds  in  collect- 
ing evidence,  to  refute  that  which  is  to  be  discredited. 

That  persons  who  are  dead  in  sin  are  not  too  dead 
io  beheve  the  gospel,  appears  from  the  v/ords  of  Christ 
in  the  following  passage  .  "  Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am 
the  resurrection  and  the  life  :  he  that  beheveth  in  me, 
though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live."    John  xi.  25. 


REGENERATION    THROUGH   FAITH.  27^ 

If  ihey  who  hold  that  sinners  cannot  come  to  Jesus 
oy  faith  until  they  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  be 
right,  then  Jesus  is  not  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  because 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  they  say  is  a  distinct  person,  saves 
them  before  they  come  to  him. 


CHAPTER  II. 

TO   5E0M"    THAT    REGENERATION   IS    EFFECTED    BY    THE   HOLT 
SPIRIT    THROUGH    THE    MEANS    OF    FAITH. 


Among  those  who  think  it  is  the  duty  and  privilege  ot 
all  who  hear  the  gospel,  to  "*.believe  and  obey  it,  there 
are  two  opinions  on  the  subject.  Some  of  them  think 
that  faith  is  the  efficient  cause  of  regeneration  ;  while 
others  believe  that  it  is  only  an  instrumental  cause,  and 
that  the  efficient  cause  of  the  new  birth  is  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  which  they  think  is  re- 
ceived through  faith  The  former  teach  that  regenera- 
tion is  a  moral  persuasion,  and  that  the  opinions  they 
receive  in  believing  the  gospel  deeply  affi^ct  their  hearts, 
and  produce  the  most  salutary  effects  on  their  temper, 
and  conduct.  The  latter  believe  all  this,  and  more 
too:  they  think  the  new  birth  is  not  only  a  change  of 
opinion,  followed  by  a  correspondent  change  of  temper 
and  conduct,  bat  that  it  is  a  real  change  of  heart,  effect- 
ed in  us  by  a  supernatural  energy. 

That  the  new  birth  i.  effected  by  a  direct  act  of  God, 
appears  from  the  following  text :  "  Marvel  not  that  1 
said  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born  again.  The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound 
thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and  whith- 
er it  goeth  :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.'- 
John  iii.  7,  8.  Now,  if  regeneration  consists  in  nothing 
more  than  our  belief,  and  the  effect  it  has  on  our  tern- 


280  UEGENERATION   THROUGH   FAITH^ 

per  and  conduct,  why  did  not  Christ  tell  Nicodemu-^ 
so  ?  If  that  was  all  which  was  necessary  for  him  to 
believe  on  the  subject,  why  did  the  Saviour  in  explain- 
ing it  to  him  ascribe  the  new  birth  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
and  compare  it  to  the  wind  blowing  where  it  listeth  ^ 
Surely  our  act  of  believing  has  no  resemblance  to  the 
blowing  of  wind. 

Some  Christians  think  tlmt  although  the  new  birtli 
might  have  been  effected  by,  or  at  least  accompanied 
with  the  direct  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  that  the  case  is  very  different  now  :  they 
assert  that  the  Spirit  is  now  confined  to  the  word,  and 
that  since  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  is  no  present 
outpouring  of  the  spirit  from  heaven.  If  this  doctrine 
be  true,  I  do  not  see  the  use  of  praying  for  the  Spirit, 
nor  for  any  Spiritual  blessing  ;  seeing  all  the  Spirit  that 
we  are  to  expect  is  in  the  Bible,  and  it  we  have  already. 
If  I  believed  that  the  Spirit  is  confined  to  the  word,  anci 
should  under  that  belief  pray  for  the  Spirit  at  all,  I 
would  either  pray  to  the  Bible  to  give  it  to  me,  oi'  else  I 
would  pray  to  God  to  give  me  more  Bibles. 

If  God  will  not  pour  out  of  his  Spirit  on  us  in  the 
present  day,  we  must  be  in  a  dispensation  very  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  primitive  Christians  :  for  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  frequently  poured  out  on  them.  God  says» 
by  Joel.  "It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  on  all  fiesh.'^  Acts  ii.  16.  Christ 
says,  "  Your  heavenly  Father  will  give  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  them  that  ask  him."  Luke  xi»  13.  James  says, 
*'If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom  let  him  ask  of  God,  that 
giveth  to  all  men,  liberally,  EUid  upbraideth  not ;  and 
it  shall  be  given  him."  Jam.  i.  5.  It  appears  frcn'ir. 
tlais  and  similar  passages,  that  we  may  pray  to  God  for. 
and  expect  to  receive  supernatual  aid  from  him. 

The  Bible  did  not  give  me  religion,  but  it  was  the 
means  through  which  I  got  it.  The  holy  scriptures 
gave  me  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  taught  me  that  I 
was  a  sinner,  and  that  the  Lord  would  have  mercy  on 
me  if  I  would  seek  him.  I  then  sought  him,  and  he 
gave  me  religion,  which  I  think  was  a  special  gift  from 
himself.  As  we  are  liable  to  take  the  suggestions  of  thf 
devil  for  the  operations  of  the  spirit ;  it  i^,  therefarc,. 


REGENERATION    THROUGH    FAITH.  281 

necessary  that  we  should  take  the  Bible  for  our  standard, 
by  which  to  try  the  spirits.  But  if  there  be  no  opera- 
lion  of  the  spirit,  it  is  most  probable  that  God,  instead 
of  telling  us  to  try  the  spirits,  would  have  told  us  to  re- 
ject them  all. 

Were  I  to  believe  that  the  word  is  a  dead  letter,  and 
that  I  must  be  entirely  guided  by  the  spirit,  I  would  be 
liable  to  mistake  the  impulses  of  my  own  mind,  and  the 
temptations  of  the  devil  for  the  teachings  of  the  spirit : 
and  so  run  into  all  manner  of  delusions.  And  I  sup- 
pose this  error  has  produced  many  of  the  delusions  that 
are  in  the  world.  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  should  be- 
lieve that  God  will  not  pour  out  his  spirit  on  us  in  the 
present  day  to  fire  our  hearts  with  his  love,  nor  to  dispel 
the  clouds  of  darkness  from  our  minds,  I  think  it  would 
destroy  the  spirit  of  prayer  out  of  my  heart  altogether, 
and  of  course  I  would  lose  the  spirit  of  religion:  be- 
cause I  can  see  no  use  in  praying  to  God  for  blessings, 
when  I  believe  he  will  give  me  none. 

Although  the  spirit  does  not  teach  any  thing  contrary 
to  the  word,  yet  it  teaches  things  that  the  word  does  not 
teach.       The    word    points  out  the    qualifications  of 
preachers,  and  christians  ;  and  the  spirit  by  giving  those  - 
quaUfications,  points  out  the  persons. 

The  part  that  faith  has  in  the  conversion  of  a  soul,  is, 
I  think,  clearly  pointed  out  in  the  following  narrative  of 
the  woman  that  had  the  issue  of  blood,  vvho,  "  When  she 
had  heard  of  Jesus,  came  in  the  press  behind,  and 
touched  his  garment :  for  she  said,  if  I  may  but  touch 
his  clothes,  I  shall  be  whole.  And  straightway  the 
fountain  of  her  blood  was  dried  up  ;  and  she  felt  in  her 
>ody  that  she  was  healed  of  that  plague.  And  Jesus, 
immediately  knovv-::ig  in  himself  that  virtue  had  gone  out 
of  him,  turned  hini  about  in  the  press,  and  said,  who 
touched  my  clothes  1  And  he  said  unto  her,  daughter, 
thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole."  Mark  v.  27,  2S,  29.i 
30,^34.  Thus  we  see  that  although  Christ  said  her 
faith  had  made  her  whole,  still  it  is  evident  that  her  faith 
was  not  the  efficient  ca'ise  of  her  cure,  it  was  the  virtue 
which  went  out  of  him  t'lat  cured  the  woman,  and  faith 
was  the  means  by  which  she  obtained  that  virtue.  But 
if  she  had  had  as  much  faith  in  touching  the  clothes  of 
2-4* 


2S2  REGENERATION-  THROUGH  FAlTm' 

any  other  person  in  the  world,  it  would  have  done  he:t 
no  good,  because  no  matter  how  strong  faith  is,  it  can= 
not  draw  virtue  from  that  which  has  none. 

Neither  the  promise,  nor  faith  in  it,  is  the  thing  prom- 
ised, but  the  promise  is  the  means  through  which  it  i? 
conveyed,  and  faith  is  the  hand  reached  out  to  receive 
it,  and  the  spirit,  which  is  the  thing  promised,  is  a  gif? 
right  from  God.  Hence,  Paul  says,  "  In  whom,  also, 
after  that  ye  behoved,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Hoi}' 
Spirit  of  promise,  which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheri- 
tance." Eph.  i.  13, 14.  It  is  well  known  that  earnest 
money  is  part  of  a  price  paid  in  order  to  confirm  a  bar- 
gain, and  that  the  party  v>'ho  pays  it,  by  so  doing,  obli- 
gates himself  to  pay  the  whole  stipulated  sum.  Whei; 
we  enter  into  the  new  covenant,  God  promises  us  an 
inheritance  in  heaven  incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away;  and  when  he  gives  us  his  Holy  Spirit, 
it  is  something  more  than  a  promise  ;  it  is  part  of  the 
inheritance,  given  as  an  earnest  of  the  balance  :  and 
by  it  we  are  assured  that  God  v/ill  faithfully  perform  to 
us  every  promise  he  has  made  in  the  gospel. 

The  scriptures  require  us  to  believe  with  our  heartS; 
which  is  very  different  from  believing  with  our  heads. 
Thousands  that  are  not  born  of  God  profess  to  believe 
in  Christ  :  but  John  says,  "  Whosoever  believeth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  1  John  v.  1. — 
Of  course  I  conclude  that  the  faith  of  those  unregen- 
erate  believers  is  nothing  more  than  an  opinion  of  the 
head:  but  Paul  says,  ''With  the  heart  man  believetli 
imto  righteousness."  Rom.  x.  10,  The  heart  in  scrip- 
ture signifies  the  soul,  and  all  its  affections.  And  un- 
til all  the  desires  of  the  heart  are  placed  on  Christ, 
some  of  them  must  be  placed  on  other  objects,  which 
the  heart  loves  better  than  it  does  him.  The  Jews  pro- 
fessed to  believe  Moses,  and  so  strenuous  were  they 
for  the  law  of  Moses,  that  they  wanted  to  murder  Christ 
feecause  he  healed  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  day;  but  Christ^ 
said  to  them,  "  For  had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would 
Imve  believed  me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  be- 
lieve not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?'* 
^ohn  V.  46,  47.  They  had  a  system  of  opinions  iii. 
'£h.eij>k,eatls,  and  honored  the  Lord  with  their  Itpsj^  biix^- 


KEGEKERA.TION   OF  FAITH.  2S3 

itieir  hearts  were  far  from  him.  When  the  eunuch  said, 
here  is  water ;  "  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
Phihp  said  if  thou  behevest  with  all  thine  heart  thoTi 
mayest."  Acts  viii.  36,  37.  God  says,  "  Ye  shall 
seek  me,  and  find  me,  when  ye  shall  search  for  me  with 
all  your  heart."  Jer.  xxix.  13.  It  is  impossible  to 
believe  in  God  with  all  our  hearts  without  loving  him 
with  all  our  hearts.  And  if  we  love  him,  we  will  keep 
his  commandments.  Faith  and  obedience  are  so  nigh 
akin  that  the  one  cannot  hve  without  the  other  ;  "  For 
as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  withou'^ 
works  is  dead  also."     Jam.  ii.  26. 

God  is  as  willing  for  sinners  to  come  to  him  and  re- 
ceive pardon  now,  as  he  ever  was,  or  ever  will  be.  J 
should  think  myself  guilty  of  treason  against  God,  if  I 
were  to  tell  his  creatures  that  they  can  neither  believe 
nor  obey  hun. 

Every  argument  used  to  convince  sinners  that  God 
has  not  yet  given  them  power  to  believe,  and  obey  him,, 
is  an  argument  to  persuade  them  to  do  neither  the  one. 
nor  the  other  ;  because  there  is  no  way  more  effectual 
to  stop  any  person  from  doing  a  thing,  than  to  make 
him  beheve  he  cannot  do  it. 

Were  I  to  tell  those  who  are  rebelling  against  God. 
that  he,  having  ordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  has 
put  it  out  of  their  power  to  do  otherwise  ;  and  that  the 
time  wliich  he  has  appointed  for  them  to  cease  rebellion 
has  not  yet  come,  that  he  has  ordained  that  they  shall 
rebel  till  that  time  does  come;  and  that  he  w  ill  then 
cause  any  of  them,  who  may  be  of  the  elect  number,  to 
believe  and  obey  him,  and  that  although  the  greater  part 
of  them  will  never  have  it  in  their  power  to  turn  to  God. 
yet  he  will  punish  them  to  all  eternity  for  not  turning,  1 
do  not  think  such  preaching  would  consist  with  the  glory 
of  God,  or  the  good  of  men  :  yet  this  kind  of  preaching 
is  very  common  in  the  present  day.  Some  preachers^ 
instead  of  preaching  the  gospel  to  sinners,  and  persuad- 
ing them  to  repent,  and  believe  in  Christ,  spend  much 
of  their  time  in  persuading  them  that  they  can  neither 
believe  in  Christ,  nor  turn  to  him  now,  but  that  they 
inust  wait  till  God's  tirae  comeSj  which  is  the  game  as 


284  riEGENERATIOxN    THROUGH    FAITH.  ^ 

0  say  that  God  is  not  willing  for  them  to  turn  to  him 
!0W,  but  that  he  wants  them  to  sin  a  while  longer. 

That  the  Lord  is  willing  for  sinners  to  come  to  him 
low,  appears  from  the  following  texts  :  ''  To-day,  if  ye 
will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts."  Heb.  iii. 
7,  S.  "  Behold,  now  is  the  accepted  time  :  behold,  uow 
is  the  day  of  salvation."  2  Cor.  vi.  2.  Jesus  Christ 
says,  "  Come  ;  for  all  things  are  now  ready."  Liik(i 
xiv.  17. 

The  following  text  has  been  brought  to  prove  that  wo 
cannot  have  faith  until  it  is  wrought,  in  us  l3y  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit.  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
vherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of 
le  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
lead."  Col.  ii.  12.  This  text  does  not  prove  the  doc- 
trine ;  because,  as  we  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism  are 
raised  to  newness  of  life  by  faith  in  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, which  was  effected  by  the  operation  of  God's 
power,  it  is  evident  that  the  operation  of  God  spoken  of 
in  the  text,  was  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  object 
of  our  faith. 

Paul  says,  *' Faith  comes  by  hearing."  Rom.  x.  17. 
He  also  says,  that  the  spirit  is  received  through  faith. 
»'  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by 
the  hearing  of  faith?"  ''  He  therefore  that  ministereth 
to  you  the  Spirit,  and  worketh  »niracles  among  you, 
doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of 
faith  1"  Gal.  iii.  2.  5.  Jesus  says,  the  saints  are  sancti- 
fied through  faith.  "  Them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith 
that  is  in  me."  Acts  xxvi.  18.  Just  before  Christ  left 
this  world  he  prayed  to  his  Father  for  his  disciples  say- 
ing, '•'  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth:  thy  word  is  truth. 
As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the  world,  even  so  have  I  also 
sent  them  into  the  world.  And  fjr  their  sakes  I  sanc- 
tify myself,  that  they  also  might  be  sanctified  through 
the  truth."     John  xvii.  17,  18,  19. 

Some  people  have  said  that  faith  is  no  how  dependant 
on  the  will,  nor  affections,  but  that  it  depends  entirely 
on  evidence.  In  this  I  think  they  are  mistaken.  Al- 
though faith  is  the  effect  that  evidence  has  on  the  mind, 
the  will  frequently  decides  whether  the  evidence  shall 
he  admitted  or  rejected.     And  when  the  evidence  is? 


admitted,  it  is  nourished,  or  suppressed  by  the  affec* 
tions,  according  as  it  agrees  with,  or  opposes  them.  It 
the  doctrine  beheved  agrees  with  the  affections,  they 
promote  every  mental  exertion  to  brighten  the  evidence 
in  its  favor  :  but  if  it  opposes  them,  they  will  oppose  it, 
and  directly  set  the  mind  on  search  of  conflicting  evi- 
dence to  enable  it  to  doubt.  Hence  the  great  neceSr- 
sity  of  training  up  children  to  rehgion,  and  cultivating 
good  affection  in  their  minds  from  their  infancy. 

We  are  naturally  inclined  to  believe  things  are  as  we 
wish  them  to  be.  A  majority  of  the  people  are  aptesi 
to  believe  that  doubtful  popular  elections  will  end  agree- 
ably to  their  wishes. 

Prejudice  has  a  deleterious  effect  on  the  understand*- 
ing.  I  have  known  some  people  so  prejudiced  againsi 
a  preacher,  or  his  congregation,  that  the  clearest  evi- 
dence could  make  no  impression  on  their  minds,  al- 
though they  sometimes  gave  accurate  attention  to  the 
best  of  sermons.  Again  I  have  known  those  same  per- 
sons, (after  having  their  prejudices  against  the  people 
removed,)  to  be  convinced  by  much  less  convincuag 
evidence. 

Nearly  nine 'tenths  of  the  people  in  this  gospel  land, 
have  faith  enough  to  save  their  souls,  if  they  would  only 
put  it  into  practice.  If  every  one  would  do  all  he  be- 
lieves  is  right,  and  leave  undone  all  he  believes  is  wrong, 
no  doubt  but  that  the  most  of  them  would  be  saved. 

Faith  without  works  is  dead,  and  cannot  save  the 
soul,  but  a  living  faith  always  produces  good  works,  and 
is  accompanied  with  salvation.  The  heathen  who 
never  heard  the  gospel,  have  no  choice  whether  they 
"will  or  will  not  believe  it :  but  those  who  were  raised  in 
a  gospel  land  have  their  choice  whether  they  will  have 
a  living  or  a  dead  faith,  that  is,  they  may  either  do  the 
things  they  believe  they  ought  to  do,  or  they  may  neg' 
lect  them,  and  pursue  the  course  which  they  believe  is 
wrong. 

If  faith  were  no  how  dependant  on  the  will,  nor  affec- 
tions, unbelief  could  be  no  crime,  because  nothing  can 
be  a  crime  to  us  that  has  no  connection  with  our  wills, 
nor  affections :  but  Jesus  Christ  charges  unbelief  on 
those  who  reject  his  gospQl  as  a  condemning  sin.     H^ 


286  rAiTH. 

says,  '^  He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  he 
cause  he  hath  not  beheved  in  the  name  of  the  only-be- 
gotten Son  of  God."     John  iii.  18. 

It  has  been  argued  by  some  people,  that  all  persons 
act  at  all  times  according  to  their  faith,  that  is,  that  they 
invariably  pursue  the  greatest  apparent  good  :  but  I 
think  this  is  a  mistake.  If  all  people  would  always  do 
what  they  believe  is  best,  no  person  could  have  a  guilty 
conscience.  We  see  mankind  generally  act  according 
to  their  inclinations,  when  at  the  same  time  they  believe 
and  acknowledge  that  such  a  course  of  conduct  is  not 
right,  nor  not  the  best  for  themselves.  This  again  ar- 
gues the  necessity  of  training  up  children  in  the  habits 
of  virtue. 


PART  YIII. 


OF  ELECTION. 


The  following  discourse  on  election  was  first  piib- 
lished  in  Vincennes  in  1818.  It  has  gone  through  se- 
eral  editions  in  the  Western  States,  but  has  never 
:irculated  much  east  of  the  mountains.  I  now  offer  to 
?.he  public  the  present  edition,  with  some  improve- 
ments. 


SER3IOX 


ON 


ELECTION, 


BY 


WILLIAM  KIAKADE, 


A   MINISTER    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION, 


i  have  not  written  this  sermon  as  the  system  of  any 
sect,  nor  was  I  employed  by  any  to  write  it.  I  wrote 
it  of  my  own  accord,  and  send  it  into  the  world  as  a 
sketch  of  my  own  sentiments  ;  and  for  it  I  alone  am  ac- 
countable. 

As  this  sermon  was  not  written  to  support  any  par- 
ticular sect,  I  hope  no  person  will  be  afraid  to  read  it.  ' 

All  pious,  sensible  people,  know  that  truth  cannot  suf- 
fer from  investigation.  In  this  sermon  I  have  but  once 
disputed  the  translation.  In  other  parts  of  it  I  have  re- 
ferred to  the  original,  merely  to  explain  the  English 
scriptures.  If  I  have  named  Calvinism,  it  was  only  to 
expose  the  doctrine.  I  love  the  Calvinists  as  well  as 
F  do  any  christians. — May  the  Lord  guide  Us  into  all 
-luth. 


ON 

From  Romans  Tiii,  S3. 
■^  ^VHO   SHALL  LAY   AXY  THING   TO    THE    CHARGE    OF    &0D*« 


I  have  always  regarded  election  as  one  of  the  mosr 
important  doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  have  been  no 
little  surprised  to  hear  some  christians  say  •.'  away  with 
election !"  As  election  is  plainly  taught  in  the  Bible,  1 
shall  attempt,  not  to  explode,  but  to  explain  the  doctrine. 
In  doing  this  I  shall  have  occasion  frequently  to  hold 
up  to  view  that  system  of  election  which  is  believed  b\ 
my  Calvinistic  brethren,  and  by  so  doing  I  do  not  ex- 
pect to  offend  pious  and  sensible  Calvinists,  because 
all  my  sensible  readers  must  discover  that  it  is  my  in- 
tention neither  to  deceive  nor  ridicule,  but  in  humilit} 
and  love  to  instruct  them.  Although  this  text  would 
naturally  lead  me  to  speak,  not  only  of  the  elect,  bui 
also  of  the  charges  that  might  be  brought  against  them, 
and  of  the  principle  on  which  they  are  cleared  of  those 
charges ;  yet  as  I  design  the  sermon  shall  be  entireh 
an  election,  I  shall  neglect  the  two  last  propositions^ 


29^  JHE   ilLECT. 

and  confine  myself  to  the  first,  in  discussing  which,  t 
shall  endeavor  to  show, 

1.  TVTio  the  elect  are, 

2.  WTien  and  how  they  were  elected.     And 

3.  Answer  the  objections  that  are  most  commonly 
brought  against  the  doctrine,  which  I  shall  advance. 


SECTION  I. 


TO    SHOW   WHO    THE   ELECT    ARE. 

Agreeable  to  the  method  proposed,  the  first  question 
that  arises,  is,  "  who  are  God's  elect  ?"  I  answer,  the 
elect  of  God  are,  first,  Jesus  Christ,  and  secondly,  every 
christian.  That  Christ  is  called  God's  elect,  appears 
from  Isa.  xlii.  1,  2,  3.  "  Behold  my  servant,  whom  I 
uphold,  mine  elect  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth :  I  have 
put  my  Spirit  upon  him  :  he  shall  bring  forth  judgement 
to  the  Gentiles.  He  shall  not  cry  nor  lift  up,  nor  cause 
his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  A  bruised  reed 
shall  he  not  break,  and  the  smoking  flax  shall  he  not 
quench  :  he  shall  bring  forth  judgement  unto  truth.'* 
That  the  person  here  described  is  Christ,  is  evident 
from;  Mat.  xii.  18,  19,  20.  *' Behold  my  servant, 
whom  I  have  chosen  :  my  beloved,  in  whom  my  soul 
is  well  pleased  :  I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him,  and  he 
shall  show  judgement  to  the  Gentiles.  He  shall  not 
strive,  nor  cry,  neither  shall  any  man  hear  his  voice  in 
the  streets.  A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break,  and 
smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench,  till  he  send  forth 
judgement  unto  victory."  But  this  is  not  the  only  place 
where  Christ  is  called  the  elect  of  God  ;  he  is  mentioned 
under  that  character  in  1  Pet.  ii.  6.  ''  Behold  I  lay  in 
Zion  a  chief  corner  stone,  elect,  precious  :  and  he  that 
bclieveth  in  him  shall  not  be  confounded. 

To  elect,  is  to  choose,  and  that  Christ  was  chosen  of 
Clod,  is  clear  from  the  following  texts  :  *'  I  have  made 


THE   ELECT.-  29*3 

a  covenant  with  my  chosen."  Psal.  Ixxxix.  3.  No 
person,  who  will  read  this  psalm  throughout,  will  den} 
that  the  person  here  mentioned  is  Christ.  "  If  so  be 
ye  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  :  To  whom 
coming  as  unto  a  living  stone,  disallowed  indeed  ol 
men,  but  chosen  of  God,  and  precious."  1  Pet.  ii.  3. 
4.  "  Then  thou  spakest  in  vision  to  thy  holy  one,  and 
saidst,  I  have  laid  help  upon  one  that  is  mighty,  I  have 
exalted  one  chosen  out  of  the  people."  Psal.  Ixxxix. 
19.  From  these  passages  it  appears  that  Christ  is  the 
great  elect  head,  and  of  course  e^  ery  christian  must  be 
un  elect  member,  for  the  church  is  the  body  of  Christ, 
and  of  this  body  every  believer  is  a  member.  "  ISow 
ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  particular." 
i  Cor.  xii.  27.' 

"  And  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church,  which  is  his  body."     Ephes.  i.  22,  23. 

"  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church."  Col. 
i.  18.  "  So  we  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ, 
and  every  one  m.cmbers  one  of  another."     Rom.  xii.  6. 

As  Christ  is  the  elect  head,  and  the  church  his  elect 
body.  v%'e  may  safely  conclude  that  all  christians  are 
elect  miCmbers  of  this  body ;  and  consequently  there 
must  be  a  great  difference  between  God's  chosen,  or 
elect  ones,  and  the  vrorld  ;  hence  Christ  says,  "  If  ye 
were  of  the  world,  the  world  would  love  his  own,  but 
because  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  chosen  you 
out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you."  Job. 
XV.  19.  Christ,  who  speaks  as  man  never  spoke,  give?> 
an  excellent  trait  of  the  elect  character  in  his  parable  of 
the  unjust  judge.  "  Shall  not  God  avenge  his  own 
elect,  ?t'/io  cnj  clay  and  nio'ht  imto  him  V  Luke  xviii. 
7.  Saint  Paul  more  fully  delineates  the  character  of 
the  elect  in  Col.  iii.  12,  13.  "  Put  on  therefore,  as  the 
elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved,  bowels  of  mercies,  kind- 
ness, humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  long-suffering. 
Forbearing  one  another,  and  forgiving  one  another,  it' 
any  man  have  a  quarrel  against  any :  even  as  Chrisi 
forgave  you,  so  also  do  ye." 

It  is  not  necessary  for  you  to  ascend  to  the  third  hea- 
ven, and  there  search  the  secret  book  of  fate  in  order 
to  -discQYcr  whether  vou  are  of  the  elect  or  jiot.    Theiv 
25* 


294  THE    ELECT. 

character  is  here  clearly  described,  and  you  need  not 
the  knowledge  of  a  prophet,  nor  an  apostle,  nor  even  a 
liberal  education  to  know  whether  you  are,  or  are  not  of 
that  character.  Do  you  cry  to  God  day  and  night  ] 
Are  you  holy  and  beloved  1  Have  you  put  on  bowels  of 
mercies,  kindness,  humbleness  of  mind,  meekness  and 
long  suffering  1  Do  you  possess  that  forbearing  and  for- 
giving spirit  which  was  in  Christ  ?  If  you  do  not,  you 
may  rest  assured  that  you  are  not  of  the  elect  number. 

As  the  elect  members  have  a  union  with  Christ  their 
elect  head,  they  must  be  elected,  or  chosen  in  him,  hence 
the  apostle  says,  "  He  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and 
without  blame  before  him  in  love."  Eph.  i.  4.  The 
apostle  in  this  text  tells  us  for  what  purpose  we  were 
chosen,  viz. — "  That  we  might  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love."  It  also  appears  from  the 
same  passage,  that  we  are  chosen,  not  out  of  Christ,  but 
in  him  ;  and  the  same  apostle  says,  "  If  any  man  be  in 
Christ  he  is  a  new  creature  ;  old  things  are  passed 
away  ;  behold  all  things  are  become  new."  2  Cor.  v. 
17.  Now  I  think  if  we  are  new  creatures,  and  holy,  and 
without  blame  before  him  in  love,  we  must  be  christians ; 
and  therefore  this  passage  will  not  prove  that  God  has 
chosen  us  while  we  were  wicked.  The  most  probable 
meaning  of  the  text  is,  that  God,  from  before  the  foun- 
daiion  of  the  world,  chose  the  character  that  he  knew 
would  on  gospel  principles,  unite  with,  and  be  in  Christ. 
And  now,  if  we  sustain  that  character,  we  may  with  pro- 
priety say,  "  He  hath  chosen  us  in  him  from  before  the 
foundation  of  the  \vorld."  Yet  he  has  certainly  left  it  to 
our  free  will,  whether  to  be,  or  not  to  be  of  that  cha- 
racter. 

So!iie  people  are  at  a  great  loss  to  know  whether  they 
are  of  the  elect,  or  reprobate  number  ;  but  I  can  tell  you, 
if  Christ  is  in  you,  you  are  of  the  elect  number,  but  if  he 
is  not.  you  are  reprobates.  Because  the  apostle  says, 
"  Examine  yourselves  whether  ye  be  in  the  faith;  prove 
your  ownselves  ;  know  ye  not  your  ownselves,  how  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates  ?"  2 
Cor.  xiii.  5.  That  the  elect  are  Christ's  people,  I  sup- 
pose no  person  will  deny  ;  and  it  is  evident  frpm  scrip- 


WHEN    AND    HOW    WE    ARE    ELECTED.  295 

ture,  that  no  person,  destitute  of  Christ's  spirit,  can  be 
one  of  his  people,  because  the  apostle  says,  "  Now  if 
any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his." 
Rom.  viii.  9. 

It  is  impossible  that  we  could  have  been  of  the  elect 
number  from  all  eternity,  because  we  all  recollect  a 
time  when  we  had  not  Christ  in  us,  and  were  therefore 
not  of  the  elect,  but  of  the  reprobate  number.  We  all 
know  there  was  a  time  when  we  had  not  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  and  were  on  that  account  none  of  his. 


SECTION  II. 


TO    SHOW    WHEX   AX'D   HOW    GOD  S   PEOPLE   ARE   ELECTED. 

Having  thus  shown  who  the  elect  are,  I  now  come, 
according  to  the  second  proposition,  to  show  when  and 
how  they  are  elected.  Among  christians  I  know  two 
parties  who  differ  on  this  subject;  one  says  election 
takes  place  in  this  life,  the  other  affirms  that  it  was  from 
all  eternity.  Those  who  beheve  the  latter  sentiment 
are  mostly  Presbyterians  and  Baptists.  I  will  state 
their  sentiments  in  their  own  words  :  "By  the  decree 
of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men 
and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and 
others  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death.  Those  angels 
and  men  thus  predestinated  and  fore-ordained,  are  par- 
ticularly and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  number 
is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increas- 
ed or  diminished." — (See  Confession  of  Faith,  chap, 
iii.  sec.  3.  12.  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  regular 
Baptists,  is,  in  this  doctrine,  precisely  that  of  the  Pres- 
byterians ;  and  it  appears  to  me  that  if  their  system  be 
true,  we  are  so  bound  down  by  the  cords  of  fatality  that 
no  person,  by  any  thing  he  can  do,  can  make  any  alter- 
ation in  hxs  fate. 


WHEN   AKO   HOW   WE   ARE   ELECTED;  ^i 

Some  say  that  the  saints  were  elected  from  all  eter- 
nity.    This  I  do  not  believe  for  the  following  reason  : 

Election  signifies  a  choosing,  and  implies  action ; 
every  action  has  a  time  when  it  takes  place,  and  oi' 
course  there  must  have  been  a  time  before  it  took  place  > 
and  therefore  cannot  be  from  all  eternity.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  justification  from  all  eternity ;  the  thing 
js  impossible,  because,  to  justify,  is  cither  to  absolve 
from  gailt,  or  from  a  charge  of  it,  or  to  declare  one  to 
be  just ;  and  in  either  of  these  senses  it  cannot  be  from 
all  eternity,  because  the  guilt,  or  the  charge  of  guilt  from 
which  the  act  of  justification  acquits,  must  be  anterior 
to  that  acquittal.  Justification  in  every  sense  of  the. 
word  implies  action,  and  every  action,  has  a  time  when 
it  takes  place,  and  for  that  reason  cannot  be  from  all 
eternity,  therefore  seeing  these  truths  are  self-evident. 
I  hope  we  will  hear  no  more  of  election,  or  justification 
iTom  all  eternity. 

But  there  are  some  people  who  do  not  think  election 
was  from  all  eternity,  yet  they  think  it  took  place  before 
the  tbundation  of  the  world  :  with  these  I  agree  in  part. 
First,  I  believe,  that,  from  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  God  chose,  or  elected  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  great 
head  of  the  church.  And,  secondly,  I  believe  that  God 
at  the  same  time  chose  the  character,  that  every  one  of 
his  members  should  sustain  ;  yet  I  do  not  think  that  he 
at  that  time  elected  us  personally,  but  left  it  to  our  free, 
will,  whether  to  be,  or  to  not  be  of  that  character.  Saint 
Paul  says  of  himself,  and  the  Ephesian  church,  thatthev 
"  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others.'" 
Ephes.  ii.  3.  Now  if  they  had  been  elected,  and  their 
salvation  made  sure  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
I  do  not  see  how  at  any  time  of  their  lives  they  could 
have  been  children  of  wrath  even  as  others. 

When  we  were  under  conviction,  we  were  under  the 
teachings  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  certainly  he  taught  us 
the  truth,  and  well  do  we  remember  that  the  spirit  then 
made  us  beheve,  we  were  in  danger  of  the  pains  of  hell, 
and^the  wrath  of  God  forever.  It  is  plain  that  if  we 
were  elected,  and  made  completely  safe  from  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  our  conviction  must  have  been 
a  mistake,  because  according  to  that  principle,  we  cdu1<? 


W&EN    AND    HOW   WE    ARE    ELECTED.  297 

hot  at  any  time  of  our  lives  have  been  in  danger  either 
of  hell,  or  the  wrath  of  God.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  this 
system  contradicts  the  experience  of  every  christian  in 
the  world ;  therefore  every  christian  who  acts  rationally 
will  reject  it,  or  try  to  get  a  new  experience.  If  it  be 
true,  that  God  has,  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  says,  in 
chap.  iii.  sec.  5,  according  to  an  eternal  purpose  of  his 
own,  from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  elected  a 
part  of  mankind,  and  that  not  on  account  of  any  good 
works  which  he  foresaw  in  them,  and  at  the  same  time 
passed  by  the  rest  of  mankind, and  ordained  them  to  eter- 
nal destruction,  it  must  follow  with  moral  certainty,  that 
he  is  a  respecter  of  persons.  But  the  following  passa- 
ges of  scripture  sufficiently  prove  the  reverse  :  "  There 
is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God."  Rom.  ii.  11. — 
"  And  ye  masters  do  the  same  things  unto  them,  for- 
bearing threatening  :  knowing  that  your  master  also  is 
in  heaven  :  neither  is  there  respect  of  persons  with  him." 
Eph.  vi.  9.  "  But  he  that  doeth  wrong  shall  receive 
for  the  wrong  which  he  hath  done  :  and  there  is  no  res- 
pect of  persons."  Col.  iii.  25.  It  is  probable  that 
St.  Peter  once  thought  God  was  a  respecter  of  persons, 
and  that  his  spiritual  blessings  were  confined  to  the  Jews. 
But  the  Lord  showed  him  a  vision,  which  convinced 
him  of  his  errror,  and  made  him  willing  to  go  and  preach 
in  the  house  of  Cornelius  an  uncircumcised  Gentile, 
and  as  soon  as  Peter  had  entered  into  his  house,  and 
heard  how  the  Lord  had  been  dealing  with  him,  he  ex- 
claimed, "  Of  a  truth  I.perceive  that  God  is  no  respec- 
ter oj  persons  :  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him 
and  worketh  righteousnesss,  is  accepted  with  him." — 
Acts  X.  34,  35. 

It  is  impossible  that  God  could  have  been  a  respecter 
of  persons  toward  the  human  family  before  the  fall  of 
man,  for  then  they  were  all  holy,  they  being  all  in 
Adam's  loins,  and  Adam  in  God's  image,  and  if  God 
had  then  passed  a  decree  of  reprobation  against  any  of 
them,  he  would  have  reprobated  his  own  image. 

He  could  have  been  no  respecter  of  persons  toward 
them  after  the  fall,  because  then  they  were  all  fallen. — 
As  we  all  fell  equally  in  Adam,  would  it  not  comport 
with  justice,  and  mercy,  and  the  principles'  of  equality 


WHEN   AND   KOW   WE   ARE    ELECTED.  29& 

16  give  us  all  an  equal  chance  to  rise  in  ChristJ  Cer- 
tainly every  benevolent  mind  must  agree,  that  this  is' 
reasonable  and  right,  and  I  am  happy  in  affirming  to  my 
readers  that  it  is  no  less  scriptural,  than  reasonable,  be- 
cause Saint  Paul  says,  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence 
of  one,  judgement  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.: 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  Rom.  v.  18. 
The  plaster  is  as  wide  as  the  sore.  The  grace  display- 
ed in  the  second  Adam  embraces  all,  who  fell  in  the  first.- 
Therefore  with  Paul,  "  We  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died 
for  all,  then  were  all  dead,  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that 
Ihey,  who  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  them*. 
^selves,  but  unto  him,  who  died  for  them,  and  rose 
again."     2  Cor.  v.  14,  15. 

The  following  passages  of  scripture,  which  prove  that 
Christ  died  equally  for  all  men,  are  sufficient  to  convince 
us,  that  he  did  not  elect  a  part,  and  reprobate  the  rest 
from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  "  I  exhort., 
therefore,  that  first  of  all,  supplications,  prayers,  inter- 
cessions, and  giving  of  thanks  be  made  for  all  men  : 
for  kings,  and  for  all  that  are  in  authority ;  that  we 
may  lead  a  quiet,  and  peaceable  life  in  all  godhness, 
and  honesty ;  for  this  is  good  ;  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God  our  Saviour  ;  who  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. — • 
For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus;  who  gave  him- 
self a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time."  1 
Tim.  ii.  1 — 6.  The  word  all  occurs  three  times  in  this 
passage,  and  it  is  each  time  of  equal  extent.  First. 
Paul  will  have  us  to  pray  for  all  men,  and  the  reason 
he  gives  is,  because,  "  It  is  good,  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God  our  Saviour ;  who  will  have  all  men  to 
be  saved."  And  the  consequence  of  that  willingness 
is,  that  the  Mediator  has  given  "  himself  a  ransom  for 
all  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 

John  says,  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  ;  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world  "  1  Joh.  ii.  2.  Paul  says,  "  We  see  Jesus,  who 
was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  Angels  for  the  suffer- 
ing of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honor;  that  he^ 


WHEN    AND    HOW   WE    AJIE    ELECTED.  299 

by  the  grace  of  God,  should  taste  death  for  every  man/' 
Heb.  ii.  9.  Jesus  Christ  says,  "  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life."  Joh.  iii.  16.  God  himself  says,  "  Look 
unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth,  for  I 
am  God  and  there  is  none  else."  Isa.  xlv.  22.  When 
the  angel  announced  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  shep- 
lierds,  he  said,  *•'  Behold,  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of 
great  joy,  which  shall  be  to  all  peopled  Luk.  ii.  10^ 
A.S  the  gospel  signifies  good  news,  and  shews  the  wil« 
lingness  of  God  to  save  all  men,  so  Christ  made  it  the 
duty  of  his  ministers  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all.-— 
•'  And  he  said  unto  them,  go  ye  into  all  the' worlds  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  beheveth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."     Mark  xvi.  15,  16.      ^ 

If  God  from  eternity,  according  to  an  eternal  purpose 
of  his  own,  had  passed  by  a  part  of  mankind,  and  or- 
dained them  to  wrath  even  before  either  they,  or  their 
parents  sinned,  it  would  prove  that  he  had  some  pleasure 
in  their  destruction  ;  but  hear  him  swear  the  reverse  : 
"  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in 
the  death  of  the  wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from 
his  way  and  live."     Ezek.  xxxiii.  11. 

Having  gone  thus  far  in  proving  that  we  were  not 
elected  from  all  eternity,  nor  even  from  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  I  now  come  more  particularly  to 
show  when  and  how  we  were  elected. 

Saint  Peter  says,  that  those  to  whom  he  addressed  his 
iirst  epistle,  were  "  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowl- 
edge of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctification  of  the 
spirit  unto  obedience,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the- blood  of 
Jesus  Christ."     1  Pet.  i.  2. 

If  we  can  remember  when  we  were  sanctified  by  tlie 
spirit  unto  obedience,  and  had  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  that  was  the 
time,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  spirit,  and  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  Christ,  were  the  means,  of  our  eleC" 
tion. 

If  a  man  can  be  of  the  elect  number  while  he  is  in  un- 
belief, then  a  blaspheming  infidel  may  be  an  heir  of 
glory,  yea  if  it  be  so  that  a  man  is  elected  before  tie 


300     WHEN  AND  HOW  WE  ARE  ELECTED. 

is  regenerated,  then  he  may  be  an  heir  of  heaven,  and 
an  heir  of  hell  both  at  the  same  time,  because  all  will 
acknowledge  that  the  elect  are  heirs  of  heaven,  and 
Christ  says  of  unbelievers,  '*  he  that  beheveth  not  is 
condemned  already.     Job.  iii.  18. 

But  Saint  Paul  tells  us  very  plainly  how  we  were 
elected :  *'  But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to 
God  for  you  brethren,  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God 
hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through 
sanctification  of  the  spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth." 
2  Thes.  ii.  13.  Surely  we  were  not  sanctified  by  the 
spirit,  nor  was  it  possible  for  us  to  believe  the  truth  be- 
fore the  world  began,  and  of  course  we  could  not  have 
been  chosen  before  the  world  began,  because  these 
were  the  means  through  which  we  were  chosen. 

The  fact  is,  when  our  souls  were  converted,  then 
we  were  elected,  before  that  time  we  were  "  children  of 
wrath  even  as  others."  And  the  apostle  shows  that  there 
is  a  very  great  difference  between  the  state  we  were  in 
before  our  conversion,  and  that  in  which  we  are  at  pre- 
sent. "  At  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being 
aliens  fi'om  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers 
from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope  and 
without  God  in  the  world.  But  now  in  Christ  Jesus, 
ye  who  some  time  were  far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the 
blood  of  Christ."     Eph.  ii.  12,  13. 

I  now  ask  the  strongest  advocate  of  election  from 
eternity,  that  may  ever  read  my  book,  if  it  is  not  pretty 
hard  to  believe  that  a  man  can  be  one  of  God's  elect,  and 
consequently  an  heir  of  glory,  and  at  the  same  time 
be  without  Christ,  an  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  a  stranger  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  hav- 
ing no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world  ?  Yet  hard 
as  all  this  is  to  believe,  every  one,  who  believes  the 
scripture,  and  holds  that  the  Saints  were  elected  before 
the  world  began,  must  believe  it.  Certainly  the  elect 
of  God  are  his  heirs,  but  we  cannot  conceive  how  that 
which  has  no  being  can  be  an  heir,  or  in  other  words  we 
cannot  understand  how  a  child  can  be  an  heir  before  it 
is  adopted,  born,  or  even  conceived.  But  when  we 
were  born  again,  we  received  the  adoption  of  sons, 
were  united  with  the  great  family  in  heaven,  and  wer9 
made  elect  members  of  Christ  our  great  elect  head  ^ 


FOREKxN'OWLEBGE    AND   DECREE,  301 

SECTION  III, 

OF    FOREKNOWLEDGE   AXD   DECREE. 


Some  people  suppose  that  God,  from  all  eternity,  de- 
creed all  things  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  there- 
fore they  conclude  that  God  from  all  eternity  fixed  the 
fate  of  every  man.  I  will  here  state  their  sentiments 
in  their  own  words  :  "  God's  decrees,  are  the  wise, 
free,  and  holy  acts  of  the  counsel  of  his  will,  whereby 
from  all  eternity,  he  hath  for  his  own  glory,  unchange- 
ably foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  in  time, 
especially  concerning  angels  and  men.*'  See  Larger 
Catechism,  question  12th. 

Now  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  I  will  acknowledge  that 
'flection  was  from  "all  eternity,  but  the  doctrine  appears 
to  carry  its  own  refutation  in  it.  The  authors  tell  us. 
that  the  decrees  of  God  are  the  acts  of  his  will,  they 
then  say,  that  by  these  acts,  he  has  from  all  eternity 
foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  but  everv 
plain  man  knows  it  to  be  a  self-evident  truth,  that  every 
act  must  have  a  time  when  it  takes  place,  and  for  that 
very  good  reason  no  act  can  be  from  all  eternity. 

If  God  has,  by  the  acts  of  his  will,  fore-ordained  all 
mings  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  then  it  will  follow  that 
(•very  thing  comes  to  pass  just  as  he. wills  it;  and  of 
<;ourse  no  being  can,  ever  could,  or  ever  will  do  any 
thing  contrary  to  his  will.  I  cannot  see  any  difference 
between  this  doctrine  and  Deism.     The  Deists  say, 

'  Every  thing  comes  to  pass  just  as  God  wants  it,"  and 
rhe  Calvinists  say,  "  God  ordains  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass."  Now  where  is  the  difference  1  I  can  see 
none.  If  ideas  are  to  be  drawn  from  words,  this  doc- 
trine makes  God  the  author  of  every  sin  in  the  universe, 
Sccause  all  sins  come  to  pass,  and  it  says,   "  God  or- 

lained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  Certainly  if  this 
doctrine  be  true,  the  idea  of  sin  is  a  mere  elusion,  all 
angels  and  men  are  doing  that  which  God,  from  eterni- 

V,  decreed  thev  should  do.  and  which  he  bv  the  same  de- 
26 


ao2 


FOREKNOWLEDGE   AND   DECREE* 


Oree  put  cut  of  their  power  to  not  do.  But  the  Lord 
says,  "  They  have  built  the  high  places  of  Tophetj 
which  is  in  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  to  burii 
their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire,  which  I  com- 
manded them  not,  neither  came  it  into  my  heart."  Jer. 
vii.  31.  Here  is  a  thing,  that  came  to  pass,  which  it 
never  entered  into  God's  heart  to  ordain. 

The  decrees  of  any  Sovereign  are  his  laws,  so  I  con- 
clude the  decrees  of  God  are  God's  laws,  and  as  these 
are  the  effects  of  his  own  will,  every  one  who  trans» 
gresses  them,  acts  contrary  to  the  will  of  God. 

The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  commonly  try  to  prove 
it  by  the  foreknowledge  of  God.  They  think  that  as 
God  foreknew  every  thing,  he  consequently  foreordain- 
ed every  thing,  for  they  say  they  can  see  no  difference 
between  God's  foreknowledge  and  his  decree.  Now  if 
God's  foreknowledge  and  his  decree  be  one  and  the 
same  thing,  must  -lot  our  first  parents  have  been  placed 
in  a  most  desperate  situation,  when  they  were  put  in  the 
garden  ?  God  foreknew  they  would  eat  the  forbidden 
fruit,  and  therefore  according  to  this  doctrine,  he  had 
decreed  they  should  eat  it.  He  then  made  a  law,  that 
in  the  day  they  eat  thereof  they  should  surely  die,  so  it 
they  refrained  from  eating,  they  would  break  God's  de- 
cree, and  if  they  eat,  they  would  break  God's  law.  It 
is  easy  to  see,  that  according  to  this  doctrine,  it  was  im- 
possible for  our  first  parents  to  please  their  Maker. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  sinful  actions  of 
rnen.  God  foreknew  them,  and  therefore  decreed 
them,  and  then,  after  decreeing  them,  made  a  law  to 
punish  those  who  commit  them  with  eternal  destruction. 
Surely  every  benevolent  mind  must  abhor  that  doctrine 
which  represents  God  as  punishing  his  creatures  in  hell- 
iire  to  all  eternity  for  doing  those  things  which  he  him« 
self  had  decreed  they  should  do. 

God  has  decreed  many  things,  that  never  came  to 
pass,  and  if  his  foreknowledge  and  decree  be  the  same, 
this  would  prove  that  he  foreknew  many  things  which 
he  never  foreknew,  or  it  would  prove  that  he  was  fre- 
quently mistaken  in  his  foreknowledge. 

That  God  has  decreed  some  things,  that  never  did 
come  to  pass,  and  that  some  things  have  happened  con- 


FOREKNOWLEDGE  AND  DECREE.       303 

(laiy  to  his  decrees,  are  evident  from  the  following  pas- 
sages of  scripture.  The  Lord  said  to  Hezekiah,  "  Sei 
thine  house  in  order,  for  thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live." 
2  Kings,  XX.  1.  Although  this  was  a  firm  decree,  yet 
on  Hezekiah's  repenting,  God  revoked  it,  and  added  to 
iiis  days  fifteen  years. 

God  spoke  by  the  mouth  of  Jonah,  saying,  *'  Yet 
forty  days  and  Nineveh  shall  be  overthrown."  Jonah 
iii.  4.  This  was  a  firm  decree,  yet  on  repentance  the 
city  was  spared,  and  the  decree  was  never  executed. 

God  decreed  that  our  first  parents  should  not  eat  the 
forbidden  fruit,  but  they  violated  the  decree.  He  also 
passed  decrees  to  govern  men,  sayings  "Thou  shalt  not 
kill ;  thou  shall  not  steal,  &c."  But  still  we  see  men 
break  through  all  these  decrees.  I  have  mentioned 
these  passages  to  show  that  God's  decree  and  fore- 
knowledge cannot  be  the  same  thing,  because  God's 
foreknowledge  is  perfect,  and  cannot  be  thus  frus- 
trated, nor  violated. 

The  Lord  certainly  foreknew  all  sin,  and  if  his  fore- 
knowledge be  the  same  as  his  decree,  then  he  must  have 
decreed  all  sin.  Now  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law,  and  that  law  which  it  transgresses  is  not  only  the 
system  of  God^s  government,  but  also  a  transcript  of 
his  nature,  therefore  that  decree,  which  occasions  sin, 
operates  against  both  the  government  and  nature  of 
God.  This  doctrine  would  prove  that  God  is  divided 
against  himself,  and  if  he  be,  according  to  Christ's  own 
maxim,  his  kingdom  must  come  to  an  end.  But  this 
doctrine  may  not  appear  so  en-oneous  to  some  people 
as  it  does  to  others,  and  for  that  reason  we  ought  to 
have  a  great  deal  of  charity  for  one  another. 

Can  we  not  easily  conceive  how  God  could  foreknow 
all  things  without  decreeing  them  ?  Or  is  it  not  possi- 
ble for  him  to  foreknow  that  an  event  will  fall  out  in  a 
certain  way  on  certain  conditions,  and  at  the  same  time 
foreknow  that  we,  by  the  free  determination  of  our  own 
wills  in  acceding  to,  or  rejecting  those  conditions,  may 
cause  the  event  to  fall  out  in  another  way  ? 

1  think  the  following  narrative  respecting  David  when 
lie  was  at  Keilah  is  fully  to  the  point.  He  was  afraid 
that  Saul  and  his  army  would  come  down  to  Keilah,  and 
^hat  the  men  of  the  city  would  give  him  and  his  men  up 


•^04  FOREKNOVvLCDGE    AND    DECREE- 

to  them  ;  and  he  enquired  of  the  Lord,  and  said : 
*'  Will  Saul  come  down  as  thy  servant  hath  heard  ;  O  t 
Lord  God  of  Israel,  I  beseech  thee  tell  thy  servant. — 
And  the  Lord  said,  he  will  come  down.  Then  said 
David,  will  the  men  of  Keilah  deliver  me  and  my  men 
to  Saul  ?  And  the  Lord  said  they  will  deliver  thee  up 
Then  David  and  his  men,  who  were  about  six  hundred, 
arose  and  departed  out  of  Keilah,  and  went  whitherso- 
ever they  could  go.  And  it  was  told  Saul,  that  David 
was  escaped  from  Keilah ;  and  he  forbore  to  go  forth.'" 
I  Sam.  xxiii.  11,  12,  13. 

In  this  case  God  foreknew  that  if  David  and  his 
men  would  continue  in  Keilah,  Saul  and  his  army 
would  go  down  to  that  place,  and  that  the  men  of  Kei- 
lah would  deliver  David  and  his  men  into  their  hands, 
■'ivA  yet  at  the  same  time  he  knew  that  if  David  would 
make  his  escape  from  that  place,  neither  of  those  things 
would  happen. 

God^s  tbreknowledge  and  his  decree,  are  two  very 
difterent  things.  Foreknowledge  is  a  perfection  of  his 
nature  ;  decree  is  an  act  of  his  will.  To  say  that  God's 
foreknowledge  and  his  decrees  are  the  same  thing,  is 
the  same  as  to  say  that  wisdom  and  actions  are  the 
same  thing.  If  his  decrees  originated  from  his  fore- 
knowledge, then  there  is  all  the  difference  between  the 
former  and  the  latter,  that  there  is  between  a  cause  and 
its  effect.  But  I  think  his  decrees  are  caused  neither 
by  his  wisdom,  nor  his  power,  but  by  his  disposition. — 
He  does  not  decree  because  he  knows  how  to  do  it,  noi 
because  he  has  power  to  do  it,  but  he  makes  his  decrees 
because  he  is  disposed  to  do  so. 

As  God's  decrees  are  distinct  from,  and  w^ere  not  oc- 
casioned by,  his  foreknowledge,  of  course  the  whole 
system  of  unalterable  decrees,  that  has  been  built  on 
the  foreknowledge  of  God,  must  fall  to  the  ground. — 
If  his  foreknowledge  is  not  a  decree  at  all,  nor  even 
the  cause  of  a  decree,  then  his  foreknowing  every  thing 
can  be  no  proof  that  he  has  decreed  every  thing.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  that  we  might  as  well  try  to  prove  that  God 
is  the  author  of  sin  from  his  power,  as  from  his  wisdom. 
To  say  that  because  God  is  omnipotent,  he  is  therefore 
the  perpetrator  of  every  wicked  action  in  the  universe,  is 


FOREKNOWLEDGE  AND  DECREE.       305 

\\iii  as  reasonable  as  to  say,  that  because  he  is  all-wise. 
Uierefore  he  has  ordained  ail  the  wickedness  that  ever 
iiappened.  Any  of  us  would  think  hard  to  be  con- 
demned for  murder,  or  forgery,  merely  because  it  was: 
proved  that  we  have  ability  to  commit  those  crimes. 

The  Legislature  of  this  state  foreknew  that  felonies 
would  be  committed,  but  that  is  no  proof  that  they  de- 
creed them.  If  we  allow  God  to  be  as  free  as  an  earthly 
law-giver,  we  can  easily  conceive  how  he  can  foreknow 
the  crimes  of  his  subjects  without  decreeing  them. 

Some  people  argue,  that,  although  finite  beings  may 
ioreknow  things  without  ordaining  them;  it  is  not  so 
with  God,  that  as  he  is  infinite  in  wisdom,  holiness,  and 
power,  he,  therefore,  could  not  foreknow  that  any  thing 
would  come  to  pass,  nor  would  not  suffer  any  thing  to 
iiappen,  unless  he  had  decreed  it.  With  many,  this  ar- 
gument is  insurmountable,  but  with  me  it  has  no  weight 
at  all.  The  conclusion  is  certainly  at  war  with  the 
premises.  The  premises  are,  that  God  is  a  Being  of 
infinite  wisdom,  holiness,  and  power  ;  and  the  conclu- 
sion is,  that,  therefore,  he  must  have  decreed  all  the  folly 
and  wickedness  in  the  universe. 

But  one  will  say,  if  God  did  not  want  sin  committed, 
why  did  he  not  exert  his  infinite  power  to  prevent  it  ? 
To  this  I  answer,  that  as  God  is  infinitely  good  and 
wise,  he  certainly  knows  his  own  business,  and  it  does 
not  become  ignorant,  corrupt  mortals  to  charge  the  wise 
and  Holy  God  with  all  the  crimes  in  the  world,  merely 
because  he  does  not  do  every  thing  that  they  think  he 
ought  to  do. 

I  have  no  doubt  but  that  God  has  used  all  the  means 
to  prevent  wickedness  that  are  consistent  with  the  hap- 
piness of  his  intellective  creatures. 

liiberly  and  happiness  are  inseparable,  and  if  we 
were  not  left  free  to  choose  between  right  and  wTong. 
our  actions  would  not  be  the  result  of  choice,  but  of 
necessity.  If  we  were  irresistibly  compelled  by  God 
to  do  all  we  do,  it  woulsl  be  as  absurd  to  praise  or 
blame,  and  as  impossible  to  punish  or  reward,  us  for 
our  actions,  as  it  would  be  to  praise,  or  blame,  or  pun- 
ish, or  reward,  a  tool  for  being  used  by  a  workman. 
^  Holiness  and  happpiness  are  inseparable.  Hohness 
26* 


30G  FOREKNOWLEDGE    AInD    DECREE. 

consists  in  conformity  to  God,  who  does  good  io  aii  iii?v 
creatures,  therel^jie  he  that  never  does  good  is  not  holy, 
aor  happy.  If  God,  by  an  irresistible  decree,  forces  us 
to  all  our  actions,  then  in  reality  we  never  do  good,  nor 
evil,  because  all  we  do  must  be  ascribed  to  that  Being 
who  compels  us.  If  we  are  not  free,  we  cannot  do 
£?ood.  If  we  do  not  good,  we  cannot  be  holy  :  and  if 
we  are  not  holy,  we  cannot  be  happy.  So  it  is  evident- 
that  if  God  had  made  it  impossible  ibr  us  to  do  bad,  he, 
by  3  0  doing,  would  have  made  it  impossible  for  us  to 
do  good,  and  therefore  impossible  for  us  to  be  holy  ov 
happy. 

The  v.ill  that  acts  not  freely,  acts  not  at  all,  because 
every  action  to  which  I  am  lorced  must  be  ascribed  not 
to  me,  but  to  the  one  who  forced  me.  If  we  have  no 
free  will,  v>^e  have  no  will  at  all,  !)ecause  freedom  is  es- 
sential to  the  existence  of  a  will,  and  a  will  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  a  rational  being.  If  we  were  not 
free,  and  therefore  capable  of  sinning,  we  would  not  be 
men,  nor  women.  For  a  person  to  ask  the  question- 
why  did  not  God  make  me  incapable  of  committing 
sin  ?  is  about  as  good  sense,  as  to  say,  why  did  not 
God  make  me  a  rock,  or  a  dumb  beast  ?  It  is  impious 
for  the  being  that  is  formed,  to  say  to  the  one  v.ho  form- 
ed him,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  But  it  is  not 
impious  for  me  to  try  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to 
Tnen. 

TVe  cannot  possibly  will,  without  willing  freely,  be- 
■:ausc  whatever  we  are  forced  to  do,  is  not  done  by  our 
will,  but  in  opposition  to  it. 

The  ad/ocates  of  fatal  necessity  both  think  and  act 
m  opposition  to  their  theory.  When  they  sin  they  arc 
sorry  for  it,  and  their  compunction  must  arise  from  a 
consciousness  that  they  might  not  have  done  so,  be- 
cause if  they  fully  believed  that  they  were  impelled  into 
it  by  the  irresistible  decree  of  God,  they  could  not 
blame  themselves;  nor  could  they  feel  conscious  of 
having  offended  their  INIaker,  when  at  the  same  time 
they  feel  conscious  that  they  have  only  done  his  will. — 
Thus  their  inward  thoughts  are  contrary  to  their  outward 
profession.  If  I  believed  that  every  thing  which  comes 
to  pass  was  unalterably  decreed  to  happen  precisely  as 
it  does,  I  would  not,  I  could  not,  try  to  control  the  paiss- 


FOREKNOWLEDGE  AND  DECREE.       307 

uig  events,  because  I  would  feel  conscious  that  any 
thing  I  might  do  could  have  no  effect  on  them.  Bui 
we  find  the  tatalists  are  as  prudent,  and  industrious  in 
trying  to  manage  the  passing  events  as  other  men  : 
hence  I  conclude  that  they  act  contrary  to  theii 
system.  I  never  knew  one  of  them  to  try  to  control 
the  winds,  nor  the  clouds,  although  they,  as  well  as 
other  men,  frequently  feel  deeply  interested  in  the 
weather.  If  any  rational  man  believed  that  all  the  ac- 
tions of  men  are  unalterably  decreed  by  God,  he  would 
be  as  far  from  trying  to  over-rule  them  as  he  would  be 
from  trying  to  manage  the  winds  and  the  clouds. 

It  would  not  consist  with  the  happiness  of  the  people 
in  this  country  to  prohibit  them  from  owning  houses,  or 
horses,  yet  if  our  rulers  had  never  suffered  a  house  to 
be  built,  nor  a  horse  to  live  in  the  state,  the  crime  oi" 
house-burning  nor  horse-stealing  never  would  have 
been  committed  among  us  .  so  it  would  be  inconsistent 
Avith  our  happiness  for  God  to  have  withheld  from  us 
free  agency,  and  yet  every  one  must  acknowledge  tha? 
if  we  were  not  tree  agents,  we  never  could  have  sin- 
ned. 

To  blame  God  with  the  sins  of  mankind,  is  intinitely 
more  absurd  than  to  blame  an  earthly  law-givev  ^vith 
the  crimes  of  his  subjects. 


308  OBJECTIOXS    ANSWERED, 


SECTION  IV 


OBJECTIONS   TO  THE    PRECEDI^-G   DOCTPvl^-E   A.NSWERLU. 

Having  shown  who  the  elect  are,  and  when  and  how 
they  are  elected,  I  now  come  to  the  thhd  proposition,, 
which  is  to  answer  the  principal  objections  that  have 
been  most  commonly  brought  against  the  doctrines 
which  I  have  advanced.  In  doing  this  I  need  only  com- 
ment on  a  few  of  those  passages  that  are  most  frequently 
pressed  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  eternal  election.  Some- 
suppose  that  Paul  was  elected  before  he  got  religion,  and 
their  reason  for  so  thinking  is,  that  while  he  was  blind 
m  Damascus,  Annanias  said  to  him,  ''  the  God  of  our 
fathers  hath  chosen  thee."  Acts  xxii.  14.  And  because 
Annanias  spoke  in  the  past  tense,  they  conclude  that  Paul 
was  elected  from  all  eternity.  But  as  Annanias  calls  him 
brother  Saul,  might  we  not  as  well  suppose  his  election 
took  place  but  three  days  before  on  the  road  to  Damas- 
cus at  the  time  he  had  the  falling  exercise?  HoM-ever,  let 
us  hear  what  Paul  himself  says  on  the  subject.  "  Sa- 
lute Andronicus,  and  Junia  my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow 
prisoners,  who  are  of  note  among  the  apostles,  who  also 
were  in  Christ  before  me."  Rom.  xvi.  7.  Now  it  is 
plain  that  if  Paul  had  been  in  Christ  from  all  eternity, 
Andronicus  and  Junia  could  not  have  gotten  in  before 
him. 

Acts  xiii.  48,  is  sometimes  brought  to  prove  that  elec- 
tion precedes  regeneration,  "  and  as  many  as  were  or- 
dained to  eternal  life  believed."  Here  I  will  just  remark 
that  this  passage  is  rather  unhappily  translated  ;  the  more 
literal  rendering  of  it  would  be,  "  and  as  many  as  be- 
lieved were  ordained  to  eternal  life."  In  this  transla- 
tion I  am  supported,  not  only  by  Wesley  and  many 
other  pious  and  learned  divines,  but  also  by  the  general 
tenor  of  scripture.  The  scriptures  no  where  teach  that 
any  person  is  set  apart  to  eternal  hfe  before  he  beheve;?. 
Jesus  Christ  says,  "  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
alicadv,  because  he  has  not  beheved  in  the  name  of  the 


OF    PREDESTINATION.  309 

only  begotten  Son  of  God."  Joh.  iii.  18.  "VVe  can 
nardly  conceive  how  a  person  can  be  ordained  to  eternal 
iife,  and  at  the  same  time  a  condemned  unbeliever. 


Of  Predestinaiion. 

The  next  passage  I  shall  notice  is,  Rom.  viii.  29,  30. 
31.  "For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes- 
tinate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he 
might  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren.  More- 
over, whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called  : 
and  whom  he  called,  ttiem  he  also  justiiied  ;  and  whom 
he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified.  What  shall  we 
then  say  to  these  things  1  If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be 
against  us  ?"  I  have  heard  many  persons  quote  this  text 
erroneously;  instead  of  putting  the  i:>redestination,  call- 
ing, justification,  and  glorifying  all  in  the  past  tense  as 
they  really  are,  I  have  heard  them  put  the  justification 
in  the  present,  and  the  glorification  in  the  future,  and 
thus  they  have  read  it :  "  whom  he  justifieth,  them  he 
also  will  glorify ;"  as  if  the  glorification  were  yet  to 
come  ;  whereas  in  reality  the  persons  of  whom  Paul  was 
speaking,  had  all  been,  not  only  predestinated  and 
called,  but  also  justified  and  glorified  before  he  wrote 
on  the  subject.  Therefore  it  is  certain  that  this  passage 
did  not  respect  one  person  that  lived  on  the  earth  at  the 
time  it  was  written,  or  that  should  live  on  it  afterwards. 
Certainly  the  Lord  never  foreknew  the  wicked  to  be  his 
people,  because  he  will  say  to  them,  "  depart  from  me 
ye  workers  of  iniquity,  I  never  kneiv  you."  Then  the 
question  is,  whom  did  he  foreknosv  ?  Or  in  other  words, 
may  ^^^e  not  say  ?  Whom  did  he  formerly  know  ?  I  be- 
lieve the  persons  whom  he  is  here  said  to  have  fore- 
known, were  no  other  than  the  prophets,  patriarchs,  and 
all  his  saints  of  old.  And  as  they  were  the  people  whom 
he  tormerly  knew,  he  predestinated  them  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  first 
horn  amonjr  many  brethren.     That  i«j  he  predestinated 


310  ESAU   AND   JACOB. 

Ihem  to  a  happy  resurrection,  in  which  their  bodie? 
should  be  fashioned  like  unto  Christ's  glorious  body,  so 
that  Christ  should  not  be  the  only  one  that  should  be 
born  from  the  dead,  but  that  he  might  he  the  first  bora 
among  many  brethren.  And  having  thus  predestinated 
his  old  saints,  he  called  them  to  serve  him  in  their  va- 
rious offices,  justified  them  in  their  righteous  conduct, 
and  glorified  them  when  they  died.  Now,  what  shall 
we  say  to  these  things  ?  That  is,  what  inference,  or 
conclusion  shall  we  draw  from  these  things  ?  The  con- 
clusion is  this,  "  If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against 
us  ?"  That  is,  if  God  was  so  good  to  his  saints,  whom 
he  foreknew,  he  will  be  good  to  his  saints  whom  he  now 
knows.  *'  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of 
God's  elect  ?  it  is  God  that  justifieth."  If  God  has  of 
old  glorified  his  saints,  whom  he  then  justified,  we  may 
comfortably  hope  that  he  will  henceforth  glorify  his 
saints,  whom  he  now  justifieth. 


Of  Esau  and  Jacob. 

The  next  passage  I  shall  notice  is,  that  in  the  nintfi 
of  Romans,  respecting  Esau  and  Jacob,  which  I  have 
frequently  heard  quoted  in  the  following  erroneous  man- 
ner :  "  for  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  hav- 
ing done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  ac- 
cording to  election  might  stand,  not  of  works  but  of  him 
that  calleth,  it  was  said,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau 
have  I  hated."  But  this  reading  is  essentially  different 
from  the  text.  By  quoting  the  passage  correctly,  we  can 
easily  discover,  there  is  nothing  in  it  of  God's  hating 
Esau  before  he  was  born:  "  For  the  children  being  not 
yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,  that  the 
purpose  of  God  according  to  election  might  stand,  not 
of  works,  but  of  him  that  calleth,  it  was  said  unto  her, 
the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  This  is  what  was 
said  of  them  before  they  were  born.  But  in  the  nexi 
verse  the  apostle  quotes  another  text  which  ^vas  spoleeu 


ESAU  AKD   JACOB.  3l  1 

fif  them,  ov  rather  of  their  posterity,  long  after  they  were 
both  dead.  *'  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but: 
Esau  have  I  hated."  We  will  now  go  to  Genesis  and 
see  what  was  said  of  them  before  they  were  bora:  '*  And 
Rebekah  his  wife  conceived,  and  the  children  struggled 
together  within  her;  and  she  said,  if  it  be  so,  why  am  I 
thus  ?  And  she  went  to  enquire  of  the  Lord.  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  her,  two  nations  are  in  thy  womb,  and 
two  manner  of  people  shall  be  separated  from  thy 
"  bowels  :  and  the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the 
other  people  ;  and  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.'' 
Gen.  XXV.  21,  22,  23.  Certainly  there  is  nothing  in  this 
about  God's  hating  the  one  and  loving  the  other.  Yet 
Paul  says  it  is  so  written,  and  so  it  is,  but  not  in  Gen- 
esis before  the  children  were  born,  but  in  Malachi,  long 
after  they  were  both  dead.  *'  I  have  loved  you,  saith 
the  Lord  :  yet  ye  say,  wherein  hast  thou  loved  us  ?  Was 
not  Esau  Jacob's  brother  ?  saith  the  Lord  :  yet  I  loved 
Jacob,  and  hated  Esau,  and  laid  his  mountains,  and  his 
heritage  waste  for  the  dragons  of  the  wilderness  : 
whereas  Edom  saith,  we  are  impoverished,  but  we  will 
return,  and  build  the  desolate  places."  Mai.  i.  2,  3. 
It  is  plain  that  the  Lord  here  speaks  of  the  nation  of 
Esau,  whom  he  hated  for  being  wicked,  and  for  the 
same  reason  he  might  have  said,  "  3Ioab  have  I  hated, 
or  Amnion,  or  Egypt,  have  I  hated."  I  have  cited 
these  passages  to  show  that  the  great  God  of  infinite 
goodness,  who  holds  the  winds  in  his  fists,  handles  the 
forked  lightnings,  and  rules  the  universe,  does  not  place 
his  hatred  on  a  poor  little  unborn  infant.  To  do  so 
would  be  beneath  the  character  of  a  man,  much  mor 
that  of  the  supreme  Being ;  yea,  to  hate  an  unborn  in 
fant,  is  only  worthy  the  character  of  a  devil.  It  is  evi 
dent  that  the  prophecy  which  said,  ''  the  elder  shoul. 
serve  the  younger^^  did  not  respect  the  two  men,  bu 
the  two  nations,  that  descended  from  them,  because  i 
was  never  fulfilled  in  the  two  men.  And  indeed  it  was 
not  said  that  "  the  one  man  should  be  stronger  than  the 
other  »na?i,"  but  that  *'  the  one  people  should  be  strongei 
^.han  the  other  people,  and  the  elder  shall  serve  th< 
younger." 


312  ESAU    AND    JACOB, 

As  for  Esau  himself,  it  is  certain  that  -when  he  sorj 
his  birth-right,  he  was  wicked,  because  the  apostle  calls 
him  a  profane  person  for  so  doing.  It  is  also  pretty 
cvident  that  he  was  wicked  about  the  time  his  father 
died,  for  then  he  wanted  to  kill  his  brother,  but  that  he 
continued  wicked  till  he  died,  is  by  no  means  certain. 
True  it  is,  that  the  apostle  says,  ''  He  found  no  place 
for  repentance,  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears.'' 
But  I  would  here  remark,  that  it  was  repentance  itself, 
and  not  a  place  for  it,  that  Esau  was  seeking.  Be- 
cause the  Greek  word  auteen,  which  is  here  rendered  ifj 
being  a  pronoun  feminine  cannot  agree  with  the  mascu- 
line noun  topon,  which  is  here  rendered  p/oce,  but  must 
agree  with  the  feminine  noun  metanoias,  which  answers 
to  the  English  word  repentance.  As  it  was  repentance 
he  was  seeking,  it  is  not  probable  he  was  seeking  it  in 
himself,  for  it  was  then  m  hiii),  and  seemed  to  influence 
liis  conduct.  And  as  repentance  signifies  a  change  of 
mind,  I  rather  think  with  the  learned  Raphelius,  and  the 
(Celebrated  Parkhurst,  that  the  change  of  mind,  which 
Esau  sought,  was  in  his  father  ;  and  inasmuch  as  Isaac 
would  not  recall  the  blessing  which  he  had  conferred  on 
Jacob,  it  might  be  said  with  propriety  that  although  Esau 
sought  repentance  carefully  with  tears,  he  found  no  place 
for  it. 

Although  Esau  by  his  sin  in  selling  his  birth-right, 
might  forever  forfeit  his  father's  estate  which  was  pro- 
bably annexed  to  it,  yet  perhaps  it  was  not  a  sin  of  such 
magnitude  as  would  eternally  prevent  his  reconciliation 
to  God.  The  testimony  of  saint  Paul,  who  says,  ''  By 
faith  Isaac  blessed  Esau  and  Jacob,''  the  spirit  of  for- 
giveness Esau  manifested  towards  his  brother,  when  he 
met  him  returning  from  Padanaram,  the  circumstance 
of  Jacob's  having  seen  Esau's  face  as  though  he  had 
seen  the  face  of  God,  are  all  arguments  to  prove  that 
Esau  did  regain  the  favor  of  his  3Iaker.  Therefore  I 
conclude  it  is  very  probable,  though  I  do  not  say  it  is 
certain,  that  these  children  who  once  struggled  together 
in  their  mother's  womb,  are  now  singing  together  in 
heaven. 

I  will  explain  a  few  more  verses  of  the  same  chapter: 
Verse  15,  "for  he  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy 
on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion 


E3AU   AND   JACOB.  313 

on  whom  I  will  have  compassion."  The  character  of 
the  persons  on  whom  the  Lord  will  have  mercy  and 
compassion  is  clearly  pointed  out  in  the  following  texts  i 
'*'  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous 
man  his  thoughts  ;  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and 
he  will  have  mercy  upon  him  ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he 
will  abundantly  pardon."  Isa.  Iv.  7.  Come  unto  me  alJ 
ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest."  Mat.  xi.  28.  "  He  that  covereth  his  sins  shall 
not  prosper :  but  whoso  confesseth  and  forsaketh  them 
ihall  have  mercy."  Prov.  xxviii.  13.  "  God  is  no  re* 
specter  of  persons  ;  but  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth 
him  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him." 
Acts  x.  34,  35.  These  passages  leave  us  in  no  doubt, 
respecting  the  persons  on  whom  the  Lord  will  have 
mercy  and  compassion.  But  the  16th  verse  next  calls 
our  attention  :  "  So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor 
o^  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy." 
This  text  shows  that  willing  and  running  are  not  the 
causes  of  salvation,  but  only  the  conditions  on  which  it 
(s  received.  A  little  comparison  will  elucidate  the  sub- 
ject. A  rich  man,  who  has  his  table  spread  with  plenty 
of  the  most  wholesome  and  palatable  diet,  tells  a  number 
of  starving  persons,  who  are  not  able  to  procure  food 
for  themselves,  that  if  they  will  eat,  they  may  have  as 
tnuch  as  they  need  for  nothing  ;  now  it  is  certain  that 
neither  their  willingness  to  eat,  nor  their  eating,  either 
procures  or  pays  for  the  victuals,  yet  both  of  these  are 
necessary  as  conditions,  but  the  food  is  of  the  rich  man 
who  shows  mercy.  And  it  is  evident  that  if  these  poor 
people  starve,  it  will  be  their  own  fault.  So  all  the  pro- 
visions of  the  gospel  were  made  for  us  before  we  came 
into  the  world,  and  are  now  offered  to  us  on  the  condi- 
tions of  faith  and  obedience,  and  although  both  of  these 
together  cannot  merit  salvation,  yet  the  want  of  either 
^f  4hem'is  sufficient  to  ruin  our  souls. 

27 


314  HARDENING   PHAROAH^S   irEART  ' 

Of  hardening  PharoaWs  Heart. 

'  We  now  come  to  the  17th  verse.  <'  For  the  scrip- 
ture saith  unto  Pharoah,  even  for  this  same  purpose 
have  I  raised  thee  up,  that  I  might  show  my  power  io 
Ihee,  and  that  my  name  might  be  declared  throughout 
all  the  earth."  From  the  express  words  of  this  text  it 
is  plain  that  God  raised  up  Moses  and  all  the  rest  of  us 
for  the  same  purpose  that  he  raised  up  Pharoah,  that  is. 
that  he  might  show  his  power  in  us,  and  that  his  name 
might  be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth.  Now  if 
Pharaoh  had  obeyed  God,  and  let  his  people  go,  God 
would  probably  have  shown  the  power  of  his  grace,  in 
converting  and  saving  his  soul,  and  the  children  of  Israel 
could  have  been  taken  to  the  land  of  promise,  and  all 
God's  purposes  accomplished  as  well  without  Pharaoh's 
sins  as  with  them.  Yet  as  Pharoah  would  rebel,  God 
overruled  that  rebellion  to  his  own  glory,  and  so  if  we 
obey  God,  he  will  show  forth  the  power  of  his  grace  in 
us,  by  making  us  completely  happy,  but  if  we  continue 
in  rebellion  against  him  till  death,  he  will,  by  punishing 
us  for  that  rebellion,  show  forth  the  power  of  his  justice 
in  us.  Thus  God  can  carry  on  his  plans  in  defiance  of 
sin  without  making  it  any  part  of  them. 

But  says  one,  "  is  it  not  said  that  God  hardened  Pha- 
roah's  heart  ?  I  acknowledge  the  scripture  says  so,  but 
1  cannot  think  the  Lord  ever  intended  that  v/e,  from 
1his  text,  should  take  up  the  idea  that  he  promoted  a 
spirit  of  wickedness  in  the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  because 
God  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  and  "  Let  no  man  say 
when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God,  for  God  can» 
not  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man.'' 
Jam.  i.  13.  It  is  likely  that  the  Lord,  when  he  said  he 
would  harden  Pharaoh's  heart,  only  meant  that,  on  ac- 
count of  Pharoah's  wickedness,  he  would  refuse  to  af- 
ford him  the  softening  influences  of  divine  grace.  Such 
judgements  and  mercies  as  God  sent  on  Pharaoh  wh^n 
abused,  tend  to  harden  the  hearts  of  those  on  whom  they 
-are  sent ;  and  in  this  indirect  sense,  we  should  probably 
•uifct^rataild  the  Lord,  when  he  said  he  would  har.dea 


HARDENING   SINNERSi  315 

^haroah's  heart.  These  judgements  and  mercies  would 
not  have  hardened  Pharoah's  heart,  if  he  had  not  abused 
them,  theretbre  it  is  sa.id  that  Pharoah  hardened  his 
own  heart.  "  And  Pharoah  hardened  his  heart  at  this 
time  also,  neither  would  he  let  the  people  go."  Exod. 
viii.  32.  "  And  when  Pharoah  saw  that  the  rain  and 
hail,  and  the  thunders  were  ceased,  he  sinned  yet  more, 
and  hardened  his  heart,  he  and  his  servants."  Exod. 
ix.  34.  So  it  may  be  said  of  Christ,  that  he  by  the 
gospel  indirectly  hardens  the  hearts  of  those  who  reject 
it,  for  the  apostle  says,  "  For  we  are  unto  God  a  sweet 
savour  of  Christ,  in  them  that  are  saved,  and  in  them 
that  perish.  To  the  one  we  are  the  savour  of  death 
unti  death  ;  and  to  the  other  the  savour  of  life  unto 
life."  Thus  we  frequently  say  that  sinners  are  gospel 
hardened.  But  when  we  say  that  sinners  are  hardened 
by  the  gospel,  we  only  mean  that  they  have  hardened 
themselves  by  the  rebelling  against  it.  And  when  it 
was  said  that  Pharaoh's  heart  was  hardened  by  the 
Lord,  I  think  the  meaning  is  that  Pharoah  hardened  his 
own  heart  by  rebeUing  against  him. 


The  persons  on  lohom  God  will  have  mercy,  and  whom 
he  will  harden. 

The  next  objection  that  deserves  notice  is  commonly 
raised  from  the  eighteenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter. 
"  Therefore  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy, 
and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth."  As  I  have  already 
pointed  out  the  character  of  those  on  whom  the  Lord 
will  have  mercy,  it  only  remains  for  me  to  show  whom 
he  will  harden.  According  to  the  definition  of  the  doc- 
trine as  given  above,  he  will  harden  all  that  will  continue 
to  the  end  rebelling  against  him.  Perhaps  the  follow- 
ing passages  will  give  full  satisfaction  on  the  subject. 
*'  Because  that  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him 
not  as  God,  neither  were  thankful ;  but  became  vain  in 
their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart  was  dai'kened 


316  HARDENING   SINNERS, 

Professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  became  fool^ ; 
and  changed  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God  into  an 
image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  birds,  and 
fourfooted  beasts,  and  creeping  things.  Wherefore 
God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness  through  the  lusts 
of  their  own  hearts,  to  dishonor  their  own  bodies  be- 
tween themselves  ;  who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into 
a  lie,  and  worshipped  and  served  the  creature  more 
than  the  creator,  who  is  blessed  forever  and  ever.  Amen. 
*'  For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  unto  vile  affections, 
&c."  Rom.  i.  21 — 25.  It  appears  from  this  passage, 
that  God  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness  and  vile  affections,, 
not  because  he  had  predestinated  them  to  be  wicked, 
but  because  of  their  own  wilful  rebellion  against  him. 

Paul  says,  the  man  of  sin  will  come  ;  <'  With  ail 
power  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders,  and  with  all  de- 
ceivableness  of  unrighteousness  in  them  that  perish ; 
because  they  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  they 
might  be  saved.  And  for  this  cause  God  shall  send 
them  strong  delusions,  that  they  should  believe  a  lie  ; 
that  they  all  might  be  damned,  who  believed  not  the 
truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unrighteousness."  2  Thes, 
ii.  9,  10,  11.  Thus  it  appears,  that  not  because  God  had 
predestinated  men  to  wickedness  or  destruction,  but 
because  they  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that 
Ihey  might  be  saved,  he  sent  them  strong  delusions. 
And  although  these  delusions  of  error  and  infidelity  have 
ruined  many,  yet  as  they  brought  the  delusions  on  them- 
selves by  their  own  wickedness,  their  destruction  ought 
to  be  ascribed  to  themselves,  and  not  to  the  Divine 
Being. 

The  next  difficulty  that  I  shall  notice,  arises  from  a 
misunderstanding  of  Rom.  xi.  8.  "  According  as  it  is 
written,  God  hath  given  them  the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes 
that  they  should  not  see,  and  ears  that  they  should  not 
hear  unto  this  day." 

To  get  the  right  understanding  of  this  text,  it  is  neces- 
sary  first  to  read  it  in  the  Old  Testament  where  it  was 
originally  written,  and  then  compare  it  with  those 
passages  where  it  is  quoted  and  explained  in  the  New. 
The  Lord  first  used  these  words  in  his  charge  to  Isaiah 
when  he  sent  him  to  preach  to  the  Jews  :  "  Go  and  tel! 


HARDENING   SINNERS.  '3*17 

ihis  people,  hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  and 
see  ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of 
this  people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut 
their  eyes,  lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with 
their  ears,  and  convert  and  be  healed."  Isa.  vi.  9,  10. 
On  this  text  it  is  necessary  to  remark,  that  the  Lord 
does  not  say,  he  will  either  make  their  hearts  gross, 
their  ears  heavy,  or  shut  their  eyes,  but  tells  Isaiah  to 
go  and  do  these  things.  Yet  I  do  not  think  we  ought 
to  take  up  the  notion  iTi-om  this,  that  God  sends  his  pro- 
phets and  ministers  into  the  world,  either  to  harden  the 
hearts,  stop  the  ears,  or  blind  the  eyes  of  his  creatures. 
Because  frequently  when  the  prophets  are  in  scripture 
said  to  make  things  happen,  or  cause  them  to  take  place, 
there  is  nothing  more  meant,  than  that  they  prophecied 
that  such  things  should  come  to  pass.  For  the  Lord 
says  to  Jeremiah  :  "  Take  the  wine  cup  of  this  fury  at 
my  hand,  and  cause  all  the  nations  to  v/hom  I  send  thee 
to  drink  it.  Then  took  I  the  cup  at  the  Lord's  hand, 
and  made  all  the  nations  to  drink  unto  whom  the  Lord 
sent  me  ;  To  ivit :  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah, 
and  the  kings  thereof,  and  the  princes  thereof,  to  make 
them  a  desolation,  an  astonishment,  an  hissing  and  a 
curse,  as  it  is  this  day."  Jer.  xxv.  15.  17,  18.  Cer- 
tainly Jeremiah  did  not  pour  God's  wrath  on  the  na- 
tions, nor  desolate  Jerusalem,  nor  the  cities  of  Judah. 
all  that  is  here  meant  is  that  he  foretold  that  these  things 
would  be  done.  Again  the  Lord  says  to  the  same  pro- 
phet :  •'  See  I  have  this  day  set  thee  over  the  nations, 
and  over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull  down, 
and  to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down,  and  to  build,  and  to 
plant."  Jer.  i.  10.  Surely  all  that  is  here  meant  is' 
that  Jeremiah  was  to  prophecy  of  these  things.  So  I 
think  that  when  Isaiah  was  told  to  make  their  hearts' 
fat,  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes,  all  that  waff 
meant  was  that  the  prophet  should  foretell  that  they 
themselves  would  do  these  things. 

But  let  us  hear  what  he,  who  speaks  as  man  never 
spake,  says  on  this  passage  :  **  Therefore  speak  I  to 
them  in  parables,  because  they  seeing,  see  not ;  and 
hearing,  they  hear  not;  neither  do  they  understantjo 
And  in  them  is  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of  Is^as,  wtofe 
57* 


318  >'A3IES   IX    THE    BOOK    OF   LIFE» 

saith,  by  hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  understand ; 
and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  shall  not  perceive  ;  for  thi?^ 
people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  ot 
hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed  ;  lest  at  any 
time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  theii 
ears,  and  understand  with  their  hearts,  and  should  be 
converted,  and  I  should  heal  them."  3Iat.  xiii.  13,  14, 
15.  It  is  evident  that  the  blessed  Jesus  does  not  only 
relate  this  as  a  mere  prophecy,  but  also  pointedly  says, 
their  eyes  have  tliey  closed.''^  Saint  Paul  gave  the  same 
exposition  of  this  text,  when  he  repeated  it  to  the  Jews 
at  Rome  :  "  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the 
prophet  to  our  fathers,  saying  go  unto  this  people,  and 
say  hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  understand  : 
and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  not  perceive  :  For  the 
heart  of  this  people  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are 
dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  have  iheij  closed;  lest 
they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their 
ears,  and  understand  with  their  hearts,  and  should  be 
converted,  and  I  should  heal  them,"  Acts  xxviii.  25> 
26,  27. 


Of  names  written  in  the  Lamb^s  Book  of  Life, 

■^  The  advocates  of  eternal  election,  some  times  try  to 
prove  their  doctrine  from  Rev.  xvii.  8  :  "  And  they 
that  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  wonder,  (whose  name.^ 
were  not  written  in  the  book  of  life  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,)  when  they  behold  the  beast,  that  was, 
and  is  not,  and  yet  is."  From  this  they  infer  that  the- 
names  of  some  people  were  not  written  in  the  book  of 
life  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  In  this  I  agree 
with  them,  but  perhaps  we  may  differ  in  explaining 
what  these  names  are.  They  seem  to  think  they  ar& 
the  names,  which  their  parents  gave  them,  such  as  John, 
Thomas,  Elizabeth,  &c,  But  if  this  be  so,  then  the 
parents  of  every  child  must  be  infallibly  inspired  to  give 
it  the  same  name  that  was  recorded  for  it  in  thg  book  o^ 


In  AMES   IN   THE   BOOK  OF   LIFE.  31$ 

life  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  yes  and  it  may 
be  added  that  the  grand  parents,  uncles,  and  aunts,  and 
sometimes  a  few  of  the  neighbors  must  also  be  inspired, 
for  frequently  the  name  of  the  child  depends  on  the  no 
tions  of  some  of  them,  as  well  as  those  of  the  parents. 
But  as  these  relations  are  frequently  very  wicked  and 
notionate,  and  often  change  the  name  several  times. 
I  rather  think  there  is  nothing  of  divine  inspiration  in 
the  business.  It  is  probable  that  the  names  which  were 
recorded  in  the  book  of  life  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  were  nothing  more  than  the  characters,  which 
God  had  determined  to  save.  And  now  we  are  left  to 
our  own  choice,  whether  we  will  or  will  not  be  that  cha- 
lacter  or  name. 

That  the  word  name  does,  in  scripture,  sometime."^ 
signify  character,  is  plain  from  the  following  passages  : 
"In  Judah  is  God  known  ;  his  name  is  great  in  Israel.'- 
Psa.  Ixxvi.  1.  God  used  the  word  in  this  sense,  when 
he  spoke  to  David  by  Nathan  the  prophet :  "  And  1 
was  with  thee  whithersoever  thou  wentest,  and  I  have 
cut  off  all  thine  enemies  out  of  thy  sight,  and  have 
made  thee  a  great  7iame,  like  unto  the  name  of  the  great 
men  that  are  in  the  earth."  2  Sam.  vii.  9.  "  Where- 
fore God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
name,  which  is  above  every  name."  Phil.  ii.  9.  "Proud 
and  haughty  scorner  is  his  name,  who  dealeth  in  proud 
wrath."  Prov.  xxi.  24.  In  Exod.  xxxiii.  18.  Moses 
said  to  the  Lord,  *'  I  beseech  thee  show  me  thy  glory." 
And  in  the  next  verse  God  said,  "  I  will  proclaim  the 
name  of  the  Lord  before  thee."  And  in  the  5th,  6th 
and  7th  verses  of  the  34th  chapter,  we  find  this  name  is 
no  more  nor  less  than  the  Lord's  character :  "  And  the 
Lord  descended  in  the  cloud,  and  stood  with  him  there, 
and  proclaimed  the  7iame  of  the  Lord.  And  the  Lord 
passed  by  before  him,  and  proclaimed,  the  LORD,  the 
LORD,  GOD,  merciful  and  gracious?  long  siiffer' 
ing,  &c." 


B20  THE    POTTER   AND    THE    CLAY^ 

Of  the  Potter  and  the  Clay. 

The  next  difficult  text  that  remains  to  be  explained.. 
IS  that  respecting  the  potter  and  the  clay  :  "  Hath  not 
the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump  to 
make  one  vessel  unto  honor,  and  another  unto  dis- 
honor ?"  As  the  Bible  is  the  best,  and  safest  interpreter 
of  itself,  in  order  to  understand  this  text,  we  must  read 
what  the  Lord  himself  has  said  on  this  subject :  ''  The 
word  which  came  to  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord,  saying, 
arise  and  go  down  to  the  potter's  house,  and  there  I  will 
cause  thee  to  hear  my  words.  Then  I  went  down  to  the 
potter's  house  ;  and  behold  he  wrought  a  work  on  the 
wheels.  And  the  vessel  that  he  made  of  clay  was  mar- 
red in  the  hand  of  the  potter  ?  so  he  made  it  again  an- 
other vessel,  as  seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it. 
Then  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  me,  saying,  O 
house  of  Israel,  cannot  I  do  with  you  as  this  potter  ? 
saith  the  Lord.  Behold,  as  the  clav  is  in  the  potter's 
hand,  so  are  ye  in  mine  hand,  O  house  of  Israel.  A* 
what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and 
concerning  a  kingdom  to  pluck  up,  and  pull  down^ 
and  to  destroy  it.  If  that  nation  against  whom  I  have 
pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the 
evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  in- 
stant I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning 
a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  it :  If  it  do  evil  in  my 
sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the 
good  wherewith  I  said  I  would  benefit  them."  Jer.  xviii. 
1 — 10.  I  hope  my  readers  will  understand  this  alle- 
gory. Every  body  knows  that  a  potter's  vessel,  when 
he  is  forming  it  on  the  wheel,  is  very  tender.  This  pot- 
ter had  his  vessel  marred  in  his  hand,  and  then  it  would 
not  answer  the  purpose  for  which  he  first  designed  it,  so 
he  changed  it  to  another  vessel.  Perhaps  he  first  in- 
tended it  for  a  jug,  or  ajar,  but  after  it  was  marred,  it 
was  omy  nt  for  a  platter  ;  *'  So  he  made  it  into  another 
vessel  as  seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it."  Just 
so  God  does  with  his  creatures  .  "  Behold  as  the  clay 
js  in^the  potter's  hand,  so  are  ye  in  mine  iiand,  0  house 


THE  POTTER  AND  THE  CLAT,       32i 

of  Israel."  "  At  what  instant  the  Lord  speaks  con- 
cerning a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck 
up,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  it,"  then  he  has  it 
on  the  wheels  for  a  vessel  of  wrath. 

But  the  Lord  says  :  "  If  that  nation  against  whonri 
I  have  pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of 
the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them."  Now  we  see 
that  by  repenting,  that  nation  so  marred  itself  in  God's 
hand,  that  he  no  longer  esteemed  it  fit  for  a  vessel  of 
wrath,  but  by  repenting  of  the  evil,  which  he  thought 
to  have  done  unto  it,  he  changed  it  to  a  vessel  of  mercy. 
Again,  "  At  what  instant  the  Lord  speaks  concerning  a 
nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build,  and  to  plant 
it,"  then  he  has  it  on  the  wheels  for  a  vessel  of  mercy ; 
but  hear  what  the  Lord  says  in  the  next  verse  respect- 
ing that  nation  :  "  If  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it  obey 
not  my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good  wherewith 
I  said  I  would  benefit  them." 

Thus  we  see,  that,  by  doing  evil  in  God's  sight,  that 
nation  so  marred  itself  in  his  hand,  that  he  no  longer 
esteemed  it  fit  for  a  vessel  of  mercy,  but  by  repenting 
of  the  good  wherewith  he  had  said  he  would  benefit 
them,  he  changed  them  into  a  vessel  of  wrath.  Thus  we 
see  from  this  allegory,  that  although  God  has  as  much 
power  over  men  as  the  potter  has  over  the  clay,  yet 
he  does  not  exercise  that  power  without  respect  to  theii 
free  agency.  I  suppose  no  person  will  deny  that  the 
parable  of  the  potter  and  the  clay  is  as  applicable  to  indi- 
viduals as  it  is  to  nations,  because  Isaiah  says,  "O  Lord, 
thou  art  our  Father :  we  are  the  clay,  and  thou  our  pot- 
ter, and  we  all  are  the  work  of  thy  hand."     Isa.  Ixiv.  8. 

Now,  when  God  says  of  an  unbeliever,  "he  thatbe° 
lieveth  not  is  condemned  already,"  and  when  he  says 
of  a  wicked  man,  that  on  him  "  The  Lord  shall  reign 
snares,  fire,  and  brimstone,  and  an  honible  tempest." 
Joh.  iii.  18,  Psal.  xi.  6,  then  he  has  them  on  the  wheels 
for  vessels  of  wrath,  but  if  they  repent  of  their  sins,  and 
believe  the  gospel,  they  will,by  so  doing,  be  so  marred  in 
the  hand  of  the  potter,  that  according  to  God's  plan,  as 
revealed  in  the  gospel,  they  will  be  no  longer  fit  for  ves" 
sels  of  wrath,  because  God  says  to  repenting  sinners* 
'i  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labor,  and  are  heavy  laden^ 


32"2        THE  POTTER  AND  THE  CLAT^ 

and  I  will  give  you  rest."  I  suppose  there  are  very 
i^ew  christians,  and  indeed  I  have  never  seen  any,  but 
can  recollect  the  time  when  they  felt  themselves  to  be 
vessels  of  wrath  ;  and  in  this  the  apostle  agrees  with 
them,  for  he  says,  "  We  were  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath  even  as  others  ,  Eph.  ii.  3.  but  now  we  know  by 
experience  that  God  has  changed  us  to  vessels  of  mercy. 
We  know  from  scripture  that  every  wicked  person  is  a 
vessel  of  wrath,  because  the  Psalmist  says,  "God  is  an- 
gry with  the  wicked  every  day."  Psal.  vii.  11.  And 
the  apostle  says,  "  The  wrath  of  G.^d  is  revealed  from 
heaven  against  all  ungodliness,  and  unrishteousness  of 
men,  who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness."  Rom.  i. 
18.  But  still  we  are  happy  in  believing  that  as  God 
has  changed  many  of  these  vessels  of  wrath  into  ves- 
sels of  mercy,  he  is  yet  wilhng,  and  able  to  change  all 
that  will  come  to  him  by  faith  and  repentance.  And 
here  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  God  has  graciously  en- 
abled all  sinners,  that  hear  the  gospel  to  repent ;  and 
it  is  also  worthy  to  be  remarked,  that  although  they  by 
repentance  may  so  mar  themselves  as,  in  God's  view, 
to  unfit  them  for  vess;ds  of  wrath,  yet  they  are  not  able 
to  change  themselves  to  vessels  of  mercy  :  none  but 
the  great  potter  is  able  to  do  this.  The  Lord  has  all 
christians  on  the  wheels  for  vessels  of  mercy,  and  there- 
fore he  promises  mercy  to  them,  saving,  "  Blessed  are 
the  merciful :  for  they  shall  o'tain  mercy.  Blessed  are 
the  pure  in  heart :  for  they  shall  see  God.  Blessed  are 
the  peace-makers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children 
of  God."  Mat.  v.  7,  8,  9.  Again  the  Lord  says  of 
the  righteous,  that  he  will  never  forsake  them,  and  that 
his  grace  is  sufficient  for  them.  But  when  the  righteous 
man  turns  to  be  wicked,  he,  by  so  doing,  so  mars  him- 
self in  the  hands  of  the  potter  that  he  is  no  longer  fit  for 
a  vessel  of  mercy,  and  on  that  account  God  will,  by  re- 
penting of  the  good  wherewith  he  said  he  would  benefit 
him,  cifjange  him  to  a  vessel  of  wrath. 

That  it  is  possible  f  )r  a  person  to  be  changed  from  a 
vessel  of  mercy  to  a  vessel  of  wrath,  appears  from  a 
great  many  passages  of  God's  word,  but  here  I  shall 
only  mention  a  few  of  them.  "  But  when  the  righteous 
jfloan  turneth  away  from  his  righteousnessj  and  commit- 


THE  POTTER  AND  THE  CLAY.        323 

ieth  iniquity,  and  doeth  according  to  all  the  abomina- 
tions that  the  wicked  man  doeth,  shall  he  live  ?     All  his 
righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not  be  mention- 
ed ;  in  his  trespass  that  he  hath  trespassed,  and  in  his 
sin  that  he  hath  sinned  in  them  shall  he  die."      Ezek, 
xviii.  24.     Some  people  affirm  that  it  is  self-righteous- 
ness, which  is  here  meant,  but  it  is  plain  that  it  is  a 
righteousness  sufficient  to  save  the  man  if  he  do  not 
forsake  it ;  and  indeed  we  can  hardly  think  a  man  can 
be    lost  for  turning   away  from   self-righteousness. — 
Others  have  acknowledged  that  the  righteousness  is 
good,  but  they  say  the  death  we  incur  by  forsaking  it  is 
temporal.     To  these  I  answer,  whether  we  forsake  our 
righteousness  or  not,  we  will  die  a  temporal  death.  Saint 
Paul  comparing  the  Jews  to  tame,  and  the  Gentiles  to 
wild  Olive  branches,  says,  "Well  because  of  unbeliei 
they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith.      Be 
not  high-minded,  but  fear  :  for  if  God  spared  not  the 
natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee. — - 
Behold,  therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God, 
on  them  who  fell,  severity  ;  but  toward  the  goodness, 
if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness  :  otherwise  "  thou  also 
shaltbe  cut  ojf."     Rom.  xi.  20,  21,  22.     When  the 
apostle  found  the  Galatians  were  turning  back  to  the 
law,  he  said,  "  I  stand  in  doubt  of  you  ;"  and  then  he 
plainly  told  them,  "  Whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by 
the  law  ;  ije  are  fallen  from  grace.^''  Gal.  iv.  20.  Chap. 
V.  4.  Paul  did  not  only  stand  in  doubt  of  the  Galatians, 
for  fear  they  would  fall  from  grace,  but  also  appeared  r 
little  apprehensive  that  he  mio;ht  fall  himself,  for  he  says, 
"  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection  : 
lest  that  by  any  means,  when  I  have  preached  to  others 
I  myself  should  be  a  cast-av>ay."  1  Cor.  ix.  27.  When 
David  exhorted  his  son  Solomon  to  be  faithful  in  God's 
service,  he  said,  "  If  thou  seek  him,  he  will  be  found 
of  thee  ;  but  if  thou  forsake  him,  he  will  cast  thee  off 
forever."     1   Chron.  xxviii.  9.     And  thus  the  prophet 
speaks  to  the  Jews  and  their  King  :  "The  Lord  is  with 
you  while  ye  be  with  him  :  and  if  ye  seek  him,  he  will 
be  found  of  you  ;  but  if  ye  forsake  him  he  will  forsake 
you."     2  Chron.  xv.  2.     In  this  doctrine  Saint  Paul 
•agriees  \nth  the  Psalmist  and  the  prophetj  for  he  says  fo 


324  THE   POTTER   AND   THE  CLAY, 

Timothy,  "  If  we  deny  him,  he  also  will  deny  us.     2 
Tim.  ii.  12. 

Those  who  believe  that  it  is  impossible  to  fall  from 
grace  commonly  bring  Rom.  viii.  28,  29,  to  prove  theii 
doctrine  :  <'  For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither  death, 
nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor 
things  present,  northings^to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth, 
nor  any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from 
the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." 
Although  this  text  is  a  glorious  encouragement  to 
christians,  and  assures  them  that  their  enemies  cannot 
separate  them  from  the  love  of  God,  yet  it  does  not 
prove  that  they  cannot  lose  his  favor  by  straying  away 
from  him.  A  small  comparison  may  serve  to  illustrate 
Ihe  subject.  A  woman  loves  her  husband,  and  is  loved 
oy  him  ;  neither  her  relations,  neighbors,  acquaintances, 
nor  any  other  person,  is  able  to  separate  her  from  him  • 
but  still  she  may  prove  unfaithful  and  leave  him.  Again 
we  are  members  of,  and  enjoy  the  protection,  and  fa- 
vor of  the  United  States'  government ;  and  althougli 
neither  the  British,  Spanish,  French,  nor  any  other  na- 
iion,  is  able  to  separate  us  from  our  union  with  it,  yet 
fhis  very  government  may  condemn  us  to  death  for 
transgressing  its  laws.  Although  no  creature  is  able 
to  separate  us  from  God,  yet  God  the  creator  is  able  to 
punish  us  for  our  sins,  and  will  do  it  if  we  rebel  against 
him. 

The  following  passages  of  scripture  abundantly  prove 
?hat  God  will,  for  certain  offences,  cut  off  some  who 
are  united  with  him,  and  disinherit  others  that  are  heirs 
oi  glory.  Jesus  says,  ''  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my 
Father  is  the  husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that 
beareth  not  fruit  he  taketh  aiuaij.^^  Joh.  xv.  1,2.  A 
more  intimate  connexion  cannot  be  imagined,  than  that 
which  the  branch  has  with  the  vine ;  and  although  our 
imion  with  Christ  is  equally  as  intimate,  yet,  for  being 
barren,  God,  the  great  husbandman,  will  cut  us  off. — 
In  the  third  verse  he  says,  "Now ye  are  clean  through 
the  word,  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you."  And  in  the 
sixth  verse  he  says,  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is 
^5ast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered  ;  and  men  gather 
Ihem,  and  c^st  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned.^ 


THE   POTTER  AND   THE    CLAV.  32j? 

Perhaps  the  following  parable  will  set  the  subject  in 
^  fair  point  of  view  :  "Who  then  is  that  faithful  and 
wise  steward,  whom  his  Lord  shall  make  ruler  over  his 
household,  to  give  them  their  portion  of  meat  in  due 
season  ?  I31essed  is  that  servant  whom  his  Lord,  when 
he  Cometh,  shall  find  so  doing.  Of  a  truth  I  say  unto  yoUy 
that  he  will  make  him  ruler  over  all  that  he  h&th.  But, 
and  if  that  servant  say  in  his  heart,  my  Lord  delayeth 
his  coming  ;  and  shall  begin  to  beat  the  men  servants, 
and  maidens,  and  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  be  drunken  ; 
the  Lord  of  that  servant  v/ill  come  in  a  day  when  he 
looketh  not  for  him,  and  at  an  hour  when  he  is  not 
aware,  and  will  cut  him  in  sunder,  and  will  appoint  him 
his  portion  with  the  unbelievers."  Luke  xii.  42 — 46. 
Here  notice  particularly,  that  this  is  a  faithful  and  wise 
steward,  and  if  he  will  continue  to  be  so  till  his  Lord 
shall  come,  he  will  make  him  ruler  over  all  that  he  hath, 
but  if  he  prove  unfaithful,  his  Lord  will  cut  him  in  sun- 
der, and  appoint  him  his  portion  with  the  unbelievers. 
When  the  children  of  Israel  made  the  golden  calf,  Mo- 
ses prayed  for  them,  sa^ang,  "If  thou  wilt  forgive,  their 
sin,  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  booky 
which  thou  hast  written.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Mo- 
ses, whosoever  hath  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I  blot 
out  of  my  book."  Exod.  xxxii.  32,  33.  With  this 
compare  Rev.  iii.  5  :  "  He  that  overcometh,  the  same 
shall  be  clothed  in  white  raiment ;  and  I  will  not  blot 
out  his  name  out  of  the  book  of  life."  Take  both  these 
passages  in  connexion  with  Rev.  xxii.  19.  "  And  if 
any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of 
*his  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the 
hook  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 
which  are  written  in  this  book." 

Surely  those  who  are  written  in  the  book  which  God 
wrote,  and  those  who  have  a  part  in  the  book  of  life,  and 
the  holy  city,  are  vessels  of  mercy,  yet  by  sin  they  may 
so  mar  themselves  that  God  will  change  them  to  vessels 
of  wrath.  Certainly  the  angels  in  glory,  and  our  first 
parents  in  Paradise,  were  vessels  of  mercy,  and  we 
know  that  for  sin  they  were  cast  out  of  heaven,  and 
changed  to  vessels  of  wrath.  Thus  we  see  the  scriptur- 
al principle,  by  which  the  great  potter  works,  when  he, 
28 


Bi26  THE   POTTER  AND   THE   C^AT, 

out  of  the  same  lump,  makes  one  vessel  to  honor,  anti 
another  to  dishonor. 

Here  it  becomes  us  to  remark,  particularly,  that  these 
vessels  are  all  made  out  of  the  same  lump.  If  God  from 
eternity  has  elected  some  to  happiness,  and  made  their 
number  so  definite  that  it  cannot  be  increased,  nor  di- 
minished, then  they  must  be  an  elect  lump,  and  it  would 
be  impossible  to  make  a  reprobate  vessel  out  of  them. 
Again  if  God  has,  from  eternity,  passed  by  a  part  of 
mankind,  ordained  them  to  wrath,  and  fixed  their  num- 
ber so  definite  that  it  cannot  be  increased,  then  they 
must  be  a  reprobate  lump,  and  it  is  impossible  for  God  to 
make  an  elect  vessel  out  of  them,  because  he  has  al- 
ready fixed  their  number  so  definite  that  it  cannot  be 
diminished. 

Having  taken  this  view  of  the  subject  I  think  we  may 
safely  conclude,  that  no  person  is  under  a  fatal  neces- 
sity to  be  a  vessel  of  wrath  ;  but  if  any  poor  sinner, 
Avho  feels  himself  such,  will  forsake  his  sins,  and  turn 
to  the  Lord,  he  will  change  him  to  a  vessel  of  honor. 
Because  the  apostle  Paul  says,  "  But  in  a  great  house 
there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver,  but  also 
of  wood  and  of  earth,  and  some  to  honor  and  some  to 
dishonor.  If  a  man  therefore  purge  himself  from  these, 
he  shall  be  a  vessel  unto  honor,  sanctified,  and  meet  for 
the  master's  use,  and  prepared  unto  every  good  work.'' 
2Tim.  ii.  20,  21. 


OJ  God  creating  Evil 

I  have  heard  some  try  to  prove  that  God  makes  peo- 
ple wicked  from  the  fourth  verse  of  the  sixteenth  chap- 
ter of  Proverbs  :  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for 
himself;  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil."  On 
this  text  I  will  just  observe,  that  the  Hebrew  word  j?o/e, 
which  is  here  rendered  made,  does  not  signify  to  create^ 
but  to  work,  opejate,  prepare,  or  contrive,and  Ipmoneoo, 


APPLICATION,  32'< 


Vviiich  is  rendered /or  himself,  more  properly  signifies  ia 
miswer  his  jjurpose,  and  the  learned  Mr.  Parkhurst  thus 
translates  the  sentence  :  "  Jehovah  hath  prepared  all 
ihiiigs  to  answer  his  purposes,  even  the  wicked  for  the 
day  of  evil,  i.  e.  to  inflict  evil  or  punishment  on  others." 
See  Parkhurst's  He  rew  Lexicon  under  o-ne.  In  this 
sense  the  Lord  prepared  wicked  nations  to  bring  tem- 
poral evil  on  the  Jews  for  their  sins ;  and  to  these  evils 
the  Lord,  no  doubt,  alluded,  when  he  said  :  "  I  form 
the  light,  and  create  darkness  :  I  make  peace  and  cre- 
ate evil.  I,  the  Lord,  do  all  these  things."  Isa.  xlv. 
7.  I  have  heard  some  people,  in  quoting  this  text, 
leave  out  the  word  these,  and  then  read  it,  "I,  the  Lord, 
do  all  things  ;"  but  this  entirely  changes  the  meaning, 
because  God  cannot  be  the  author  of  moral  evd.  That 
the  word  evil  does  frequently  signify  temporal  calam- 
ities, is  plain  from  the  following  texts  :  When  Job  was 
■under  great  temporal  alflictiou  he  said  to  his  wife,  <'Shall 
"we  receive  good  at  the  hand  of  God,  and  shall  we  not 
receive  eviH"  Job  ii.  10.  When  Judah  was  afraid 
that  his  Father  would  die  of  grief  he  said,  "Lest  perad- 
venture  I  see  the  evil  that  shall  come  on  my  Father.'^ 
Gen.  xiiv.  34.  W^hen  the  Lord  threatened  the  Jews 
with  the  calamity  of  war,  he  said,  "  Shall  a  trumpet  be 
blown  in  the  city,  and  the  people  not  be  afraid  ?  Shall 
there  be  evil  in  a  city,  and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  it?" 
Amos.  iii.  6.  So  the  Lord  prepares  wicked  people 
against  the  day  of  temporal  evil,  and  frequently 
ficourges  one  nation  with  another. 


The  Application, 

Having  shown,  according  to  the  first  and  second  pro- 
positions, who  the  elect  are,  and  when,  and  how  they 
were  elected,  and  then  in  the  third  place  answered  the 
principal  objections,  that  are  most  commonly  brought 
against  the  doctrine,  which  I  have  advanced  ;  nothing 
more  remains  for  me,  but  to  apply  the  subject- 


328  APPLicATiorf. 

And  now  I  shall  begin  the  application  with  the  ienfii 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  Peter's  second  epistle  ' 
«« Wherefore  the  rather,  brethren,  give  diligence  to 
2Tiake  your  calling  and  election  sure  ;  for  if  ye  do  these 
things,  ye  shall  never  fall."  If  our  election  has  beer- 
imalterably  fixed  from  eternity,  it  cannot  be  made  surt 
by  any  diligence  that  we  can  give. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  plain  that  no  person  it 
under  any  fatal  necessity  to  be  a  reprobate.  And  I 
now,  by  the  authority  of  God,  proclaim  that  every  sin- 
ner in  the  world,  is,  on  certain  conditions,  eligible  foi 
this  election.  And  I  also  announce  by  the  same  au- 
thority, that  no  person, who  knows  right  from  wrong,  car? 
be  elected  unless  he  will  offer  as  a  candidate,  and  com- 
ply with  the  conditions  of  the  gospel.  If  any  persoi- 
should  inquire  what  the  design  of  this  election  is,  I  an- 
swer, it  is  not  to  make  us  members  of  congress,  nor  oi 
the  state  assembly,  but  of  the  general  assembly  and 
(Church  of  the  first  born,  which  are  written  in  heaven. 
To  that  happy  company  we  will  be  joined,  not  to  repre- 
sent our  country,  but  to  be  eternal  monuments  of  the 
power  and. love  of  God.  Now  let  every  candidate  foi 
ihis  election  set  listening  at  the  feet  of  Christ  the  great 
judge,  while  he  proclaims  the  following  conditions  . 
■^^  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself, 
and  take  up  his  cross  daily,  and  follow  me."  Luke  ix. 
23.  "  He  that  taketh  not  his  cross  and  followeth  aftei 
me,  is  not  worthy  of  me."  Mat.  x.  SS.  "  Ask,  and 
it  shall  be  given  you  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock, 
and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you.  For  every  one  tha: 
asketh,  receiveth  ;  and  he  that  seeketh,  findeth ;  and  tc 
him  that  knocketh,  it  shall  be  opened."  liuk.  xi.  9,  10„ 

God  in  his  infinite  goodness,  and  wisdom,  has  giver* 
us  power  to  comply  with  these  conditions,  but  if  wti 
wilfully  abuse  this  power,  and  refuse  to  comply  with 
these  conditions,  we  will  lose  our  election.  And  now* 
O  Sinner,  I  set  life  and  death  before  you.  If  you  choose 
life,  you  will,  to  all  eternity,  esteem  it  as  an  inestimable 
gift,  freely  bestowed  on  a  poor,  helpless,  unworthy  sin- 
ner. But  if  you  choose  the  way  to  death,  you  will  have 
an  eternity,  in  which  to  lament  the  wretched  choice  ;  and 
while  you  will  be  mingling  your  cries  with  the  gro?,ns  c^ 


AlPPLICATIOJf:,  ^29 

the  damned,  this  bitter  reflection  will  forever  rcnU 
through  your  mind  :  "  I  once  had  the  opportunity  of 
l)eing  elected  to  eternal  happiness  ;  but,  alas  !  for  me. 
1  have  willingly  and  knowingly,  brought  myself  to  this 
doleful  region  of  despair." 

Every  person  who  hears  the  gospel  has  great  encour- 
agement to  offer  as  a  candidate  for  this  election,  be- 
cause no  one  who  continued  a  sincere  seeker  until 
death,  has  ever  yet  lost  it. 

And  now,  0  Sinner !  you  are  a  candidate  for  eternity, 
and  if  you  sincerely,  and  perseveringly  serve  the  Lord, 
you  will  be  elected  for  the  assembly  of  the  blessed, 
where  you  shall  forever  enjoy  the  sweet  company,  and 
participate  the  sublime  pleasures  of  the  patriarchs, 
prophets,  apostles,  and  all  the  blood-washed  millions, 
that  will  eternally  love,  and  praise  the  Divine  Redeem- 
er. And  then  with  them,  and  all  the  angels  of  glory, 
you  shall  be  ever  delighted  with  the  sweet  company  of 
Jesus,  conformed  to  his  image,  and  perpetually  trans- 
ported with  the  heart-cheering  smiles  of  the  supreme 
Being,  v^^hile  new  glories  will  be  eternally  unfolding  to 
your  happy  soul. 

Poor  Sinner,  unworthy  as  you  are,  if  you,  agreeably 
to  the  conditions  of  the  gospel,  offer  as  a  candidate, 
you  will  have  many,  and  some  very  powerful,  friends  to 
promote  your  election.  If  you  sincerely  seek  the  Lord, 
every  holy  being  in  the  universe  will  be  in  your  favor. 
To  prove  your  Maker  is  willing  to  save  you, I  need  only 
write  the  following  passage  :  *'  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord 
God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked  ; 
but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way,  and  Hve." — 
Ezek.  xxxiii.  11.  God  manifests  his  wilhngness  to 
save  you  by  his  works,  as  well  as  his  word.  He  did 
not  only  make  you  a  rational  being,  and  give  you  all 
common  blessings  richly  to  enjoy,  but  also  gave  up  his 
only  and  well  beloved  Son  to  die  for  you.  Christ  has 
shown  his  willingness  to  elect  you  by  suffering  the  most 
excruciating  tortures,  and  submitting  to  the  most  igno- 
minious death  to  open  the  way  of  your  salvation.  If 
you  would  repent  of  your  sins,  it  would  rejoice  even  the 
angels  in  heaven.  All  the  saints  on  the  earth  are  pray- 
ing for  you,  God's  ministers  are  eatreating  you  to  for^ 
28* 


330  APPLICATION. 

sake  your  sins,  your  conscience  is  admonishing  yoov 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  striving  with  you. 

If  you  inquire  what  quahfications  are  necessary  to 
make  you  ehgible  for  this  election,  I  answer  ;  all  that  i? 
necessary  is,  that  you  should  be  a  lost  sinner  :  "  For 
the  son  of  man  is  come  to  seek,  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost."  Luke  xix.  10.  And  the  blessed  Jesus  says 
"  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  re- 
pentance." Mat.  ix.  13.  If  you  ask  what  are  the 
conditions  of  this  election,  I  answer  in  the  words  of 
Paul  and  Silas  to  the  jailor  :  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."     Acts  xvi.  31. 

It  is  not  by  torturing  your  body,  burning  your  chil- 
dren, or  offering  sacrifices  of  great  value,  that  you  can 
make  God  propitious.  He  demands  of  you  no  blood 
of  bulls,  nor  fat  of  rams,  nor  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem 
to  obtain  his  favor.  All  he  requires  of  you  to  secure 
your  election,  are  faith  and  repentance.  Faith  signifies 
that  confidence  in  the  gospel,  which  induces  believers 
to  obey  its  precepts.  Repentance  implies  a  sorrow  for., 
a  hatred  of,  and  a  turning  from  sin. 

O,  Sinner !  although  you  derived  your  being  from 
God,  have  walked  on  his  earth,  breathed  in  his  air,  and 
lived  by  his  bounty,  yet,  till  now,  you  have  waded 
through  his  mercies  m  repeated  acts  of  rebellion  agains: 
him.  And  if  you  thus  continue  to  transgress  till  pak 
death  puts  his  cold  arms  around  you,  then  you  will  never 
have  another  mercy  to  slight,  but  must  bear  the  wrath  oi 
that  Almighty  God,  against  whom  you  have  dared  to 
rebel. 

But  now.  Sinner,  God  is  on  treating  terms,  the  white 
flag  of  peace  is  displayed  throughout  the  borders  of  fair 
Zion,  the  silver  trumpet  of  the  gospel  is  sounding  good 
tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  people,  the  sceptre  of  mercy 
rs  waved  over  the  ramparts  of  rebellion;  and  every 
rebel  is  invited  to  touch  it  and  live. 


FART  IX. 


RESTORATION   OF    TPIE    ANCIENT    ORDER    OF    THING: 


When  I  speak  of  the  ancient  order,  I  mean  the  order 
of  the  New  Testament ;  one  inch  short  of  that  will  not 
satisfy  me.  In  that  book  the  church  is  called  the  body 
of  Christ.  "  And  gave  him  to  be  head  over  all  thing-^ 
to  the  church,  which  is  his  body."  Ephes.  i,  22,  23, 
<'  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  par- 
ticular." 1  Cor.  xii.  27.  Of  this  body  Christ  is  tho 
head  ;  the  members  in  particular,  are  the  various  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  possessing  different  spiritual  gifts  ; 
its  principle  of  life  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  whole 
body  was  brought  into  existence,  is  regulated  and  kept 
in  action.  Hence  Paul  says,  "  For  to  one  is  given  by 
the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  ;  to  another  the  word  of 
knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  faith  by  the 
same  Spirit :  to  another  the  gifts  of  heahng  by  the  same 
Spirit ;  to  another  the  working  of  miracles  ;  to  another 
prophecy  ;  to  another  discernmg  of  spirits  ;  to  another 
divers  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  another  the  interpretation  of 
tongues.  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self- 
same Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will. 
For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and 
all  the  members  of  that  one  body  being  many,  are  one 
body,  so  also  is  Christ."  1  Cor.  xii.  8 — 12.  Paul 
'Considers  these  different  spiritual  gifts  as  being  each  in 


3S^  ANCIENT    ORDEk^ 

its  place,  as  necessary  and  useful  to  the  church,  as  tjie 
different  members  of  the  human  body  are  to  a  man. 
Hence  he  says,  ''  If  the  whole  body  were  an  eye,  where 
were  the  hearing  ?  If  the  whole  were  hearing,  where 
were  the  smelling  1  And  if  they  were  all  one  member, 
where  were  the  body?"  Verses  17.  19.  The  govern- 
ment, or  discipline  of  the  church,  was  among  the  prim- 
itive Christians,  administered  by  divinely  inspired  men. 
whom  God  placed  in  the  church,  each  one  in  his  proper 
order.  Hence  Paul  says,  "  And  he  hath  set  some 
in  the  church  ;  first,  apostles  ;  secondarily,  prophets  ; 
thirdly,  teachers  ;  after  that,  miracles  ;  then  gifts  of  heal- 
ings, helps,  governments,  diversities  of  tongues." — 
Verse  28. 

This  is  the  ancient  order  of  things;  every  one  op- 
posed to  this,  is  opposed  to  primitive  Christianity.  To 
say  God  caused  these  gifts  to  cease,  is  the  same  as  to 
-say,  God  has  abolished  the  order  of  the  New  Testament 
church.  To  say  it  is  not  the  privilege  of  Christians  in 
the  present  day  to  belong  to  such  a  church,  is  the  same 
as  to  say  it  is  not  our  privilege  to  be  members  of  Christ's 
spiritual  body,  because  the  church  here  described,  "  is 
ike  body  of  Christ.'^  To  divest  the  church  of  all  these 
spiritual  gifts,  would  be  to  take  from  the  body  of  Christ 
tire  senses  of  hearing,  smelling,  seeing,  &c.  To  say 
these  miraculous  gifts  are  not  necessary  nor  useful  to 
the  church  in  the  present  day,  would  be  as  absurd  as  to 
say,  eyes,  ears,  hands,  &:c.  are  not  useful  to  a  man.  To 
say,  we  only  need  one  of  these  gifts,  viz.  faith,  would 
be  to  reduce  all  the  members  to  one.  Then,  "  If  all 
were  one  member,  where  were  the  body  ?" 

In  Ephesians  iv.  1 1 — 16.  Paul  describes  the  church 
thus  :  "  And  he  gave  some  apostles  ;  and  some,  pro- 
phets ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ  : 
till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  &c."  From  this  pas- 
sage we  learn  two  things  relative  to  the  primitive  church  ; 
first,  that  their  ministers  were  the  special  gifts  of  God  : 
and  secondly,  that  those  ministers  were  parts  of  Christ's 
T}odvj  were  given  to  unite  the  saints  in  faith  and  love. 


ANCIENT    ORDER.  333 

^uaid  them  against  wavering,  and  enable  them  to  edifv 
themselves  in  love;  If  infinite  wisdom  saw  these  gift^ 
were  necessary  to  make  the  church  perfect  in  that  day. 
who  has  authority  to  say  the  church  can  be  perfect  with- 
out them  in  the  present  day?  Surely  the  church  has  as 
great  need  of  being  united,  built  up,  and  estabhshed  in 
the  present  day,  as  it  then  had.  These  gifts  constitute 
the  ancient  order  of  things  ;  if  the  church  is  perfect  with- 
out them,  she  must  have  been  very  imperfect  with  them, 
because  they  were  members  of  Christ's  spiritual  body: 
and  if  that  body  is  perfect  without  them,  they  must  have 
been  redundant;  and  superfluous  members  always  render 
body  imperfect.  If  a  child  should  be  born  with  twT» 
heads  and  four  legs,  we  would  call  it  an  imperfect  child. 
We  have  not  such  a  church  as  the  primitive  Christians 
had  ;  they  had  too  many  spiritual  gifts,  or  else  we  have 
not  enough. 

Some  say  these  gifts  were  temporary ;  were  onl}- 
given  to  introduce  Christianity  before  Revelation  was 
complete,  and  that  God  designed  they  should  be  super- 
seded by  the  scripture. 

This  appears  to  me  incorrect,  because  these  gifts,  as 
they  are  laid  down  in  the  scripture,  compose  the  gospel 
ministry  ;  and  as  this  ministry  is  a  part  of  the  gospel 
plan,  to  say  it  was  superseded  by  the  gospel,  would  be 
the  same  as  to  say,  the  gospel  has  abolished  the  gospeL 
To  say  we  must  not  look  for  such  a  ministiy  as  the 
primitive  Christians  had,  is  the  same  as  to  say,  we  must 
not  look  for  such  a  ministry  as  the  New  Testament  di» 
rects  us  to,  because  it  directs  us  to  no  other  ministry 
than  that  of  the  apostolical  church. 

Some  say  that  the  phrase,  till  loe  all  come  in  theuniiij 
of  the  faith,  limits  these  gifts  to  that  event,  v*hich  the}' 
think  took  place  as  soon  as  the  scriptures  were  all  writ- 
ten. Their  argument  is,  that  when  any  thing  in  scrip- 
ture is  said  to  continue  till  something  else  happens, 
then  as  soon  as  that  thing  happens,  it  must  cease.  Thu.> 
;hey  say,  the  Jewish  ceremonies,  which  were  imposed 
on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation,  ceased  as  soon  as 
^hat  reformation  came. 

Althpugh  this  rule  holds  good  in  some  passages  g1' 


3,34  ArfClENT    ORDER. 

iscripture,  tbe  following  examples  will  prove  that  it  can- 
not be  applied  to  all :  "  Till  I  come  give  attendance  to 
reading,  to  exhortation,  to  doctrine.  Neglect  not  the 
gift  that  is  in  thee."  1  Tim.  iv.  13,  14.  Surely  Paul 
did  not  mean  by  this,  that  on  his  return,  Timothy  should 
cease  from  all  his  ministerial  duties.  "  From  the  dayt 
of  John  the  Baptist  iintil  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
sufTereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force.'' 
Mat.  xi.  12.  It  is  plain  from  this  text,  that  the  kingdom 
still  suffered  violence  at  the  time  this  was  spoken  ;  of 
course  the  word  until  does  not  show  that  the  violence 
had  then  ceased.  "  Sow  to  yourselves  in  righteous- 
ness, reap  in  mercy  ;  break  up  your  fallow  ground  :  tor 
it  is  time  to  seek  the  Lord  till  he  come,  and  rain  righte- 
ousness upon  you."  Hos.  X.  12.  Surely  this  text  does 
not  mean,  that  as  soon  as  the  Lord  rains  righteousness 
on  the  people,  they  shall  quit  serving  him.  *'  The  Lord 
said  unto  my  Lord,  sit  thoi:  on  my  right  hand  till  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  Mat.  xxii.  44.  Psal. 
ex.  1 .  We  are  not  to  understand  by  this,  that  as  soon 
Christ's  enemies  are  subjected  to  him,  he  is  then  to  be 
rejected  from  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Those  who  oppose  an  apostolical  ministry,  a  divine 
inspiration,  and  the  restoration  of  miracles  to  the  church, 
argue  that  because  these  gifts  were  given  to  the  church 
before  all  the  scripture  was  written  ;  therefore  God  did 
not  intend  them  to  be  permanent.  If  this  reasoning  be 
correct,  neither  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  nor  the 
Church  itself,  was  designed  to  be  permanent,  because 
they  were  all  instituted  before  any  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written. 

The  commission  for  an  apostoHcal  ministry,  is  found 
in  the  same  text  from  which  ministers  derive  their  au- 
thority to  baptize.  '•  Go  ye,  therefore,  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,  &c.  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  There  are  sundry 
texts  in  the  New  Testament,  where  people  are  exhorted 
10  be  baptized,  but  I  believe  none  but  those  passages, 
that  contain  the  apostles'  commission,  giv;  authority 
to  any  one  to  administer  the  ordinance.  And  as  this 
authority  is  only  given  to  an  order  of  ministers  acting 


ANCIENT    ORDER.  3^,^ 

nidev  the  apostles' commission,  of  course  tliose  preach" 
ors,  who  say  they  do  not  act  under  that  commission, 
have  no  authority  to  baptize  ;  because  there  is  no  text 
that  authorizes  any  person,  who  may  please,  to  admi- 
nister baptism. 

This  text  proves,  that  Christ  intended  this  order  of 
ministers  to  continue  till  the  end  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation :  but  the  opposers  of  an  apostohcal  ministry,  in 
order  to  evade  the  tbrce  of  it,  tell  us,  that  by  the  end  of 
the  world  mentioned  in  this  commission,  Christ  only 
meant  the  end  of  the  Jewish  state.  This  could  not 
have  been  his  meaning,  because  if  it  was,  the  commis- 
sion of  several  of  the  apostles  was  out  before  they 
died.  Paul  said  of  the  Jews,  "  Now  all  these  things 
happened  unto  them  for  ensamples  ;  and  they  are  written 
for  our  admonition,  on  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  have 
come."  1  Cor.  x.  11.  Paul  could  not  here  have 
meant  the  end  of  the  natural  world,  nor  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  because  they  still  continue  ;  of  course  he 
must  have  meant  the  end  of  the  Jewish  state.  Now  if 
Christ  only  promised  to  be  with  his  ministers  till  the  end 
of  the  Jewish  state,  and  that  state  ended  before  Paul 
wrote  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  it  follows  of 
course  that  the  most  if  not  all  of  Paul's  writings  were 
written  atlcr  his  commission  had  expired.  The  gospel 
dispensation  could  not  commence  till  the  legal  dispensa- 
tion ended,  because  the  church  could  not  be  married  to 
Christ  till  the  law  was  dead,  but  that  happened  before 
Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans.  Hence  he  says  "  a  woman 
is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  husband,  so  long  as  he  liveth  ; 
but  if  the  husband  be  dead,  she  is  loosed  from  the  law 
of  her  husband."  "  But  now  we  are  delivered  from  the 
law,  that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held  ;  that  we 
should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness 
of  the  letter.  Rom.  vu.  2.  6.  The  main  drift  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  to  prove  that  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation had  ceased.  Hence  the  writer  contrasting 
the  law  with  the  gospel,  saith,  "  He  taketh  away  the 
first  that  he  may  establish  the  second."  Heb.  x.  9. 
••  Christ  blotted  out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances  that 
was  against  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to 
his  cross.''     Col.  ii.   14.     "  Having  abolished  in  his 


336  Ax\CIEXT    ORDER* 

flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandmenls,  cOxt-' 
tained  in  ordinances."  Ephes.  ii,  15.  Christ  is  the 
great  Antitype,  to  which  all  the  types  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation  pointed,  and  when  he  died, 
rose  from  the  dead,  ascended  to  heaven,  and  poured  out 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  his  disciples,  that  dispensation  or 
world,  (as  it  is  called  in  our  translation)  ended.  Hence 
Paul  says,  "  but  now  once  in  the  end  of  the  world,  hath 
he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 
Heb.  ix.  26.  From  this  text  it  appears  that  Christ  suf- 
fered exactly  in  the  end  of  some  world,  and  as  no  one 
will  argue  that  it  was  either  in  the  end  of  the  antediluvian^ 
or  the  gospel  world,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that 
lie  suffered  at  the  end  of  the  Jewish  world.  Then  he 
could  not  have  alluded  to  it,  when  he  promised  his  dis- 
ciples to  be  with  them  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  because  if  he  meant  a  world,  that  had  already 
ended,  it  was  no  promise  at  all.  If  when  Christ  pro- 
mised the  apostles  to  be  with  them  unto  the  end  of  the' 
world,  he  only  meant  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  then 
the  promise  was  out  26  years  before  John  v.rote  his 
Revelation,  and  27  before  he  wrote  his  Gospel,  of 
course  these  books  cannot  be  of  divine  authority,  be- 
cause John  wrote  them  many  years  after  he  had  ceased 
to  act  under  a  divine  commission.  According  to  our 
chronology,  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  in  the  year  70, 
and  these  books  were  written  in  96  and  97.  From  what 
has  been  said,  it  is  evident,  that  by  the  end  of  the  world, 
mentioned  in  the  apostles'  commission,  Christ  did  not- 
mean  the  end  of  the  Jewish  economy,  but  must  have 
meant  the  end  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  ;  and  if  so,  it 
follows  without  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  Christ 
intended  that  order  of  ministers  to  continue  till  the  end 
of  that  dispensation  ;  of  course  it  must  be  the  privilege 
and  duty  of  his  ministers,  in  the  present  day,  to  look  to 
him  for  the  same  holy  Spirit  and  supernatural  power, 
with  which  his  primitive  ministers  were  blessed. 

James,  after  directing  us  to  pray  for  the  sick,  anoint 
them  with  oil,  ^:c.  in  order  to  strengthen  our  faith,  re- 
fers to  the  case  of  Elias  :  "  Elias  was  a  man  subject  to 
like  passions  as  we  are,  and  he  prayed  earnestly  that  it 
might  not  rain,  and  it  rained  not  on  the  earth  by  tjie 


ANCIENT    ORDER.  •337 

^pacc  of  three  years  and  six  months.  And  he  prayed 
again  and  the  heaven  gave  raui,  and  the  earth  brought 
i.brth  her  tVuit."  Jas.  v.  17,  18.  Here  an  inquiry  na° 
uirally  rises,  why  was  God  more  wilhng  to  answer  the 
prayers  of  Ehas,  than  he  is  to  answer  our  prayers  1  Was 
he  of  a  superior  v>rder  of  beings  ?  No,  he  was  a  man 
subject  to  hke  passions  as  we  are.  Was  God  more 
merciful  then,  than  he  is  now  ?  No,  he  is  always  the 
same  unchangeable  God.  Did  Elias  live  in  a  more  fa- 
vored dispensation  than  we  ?  No,  he  lived  under  tne  law, 
and  we  live  under  the  gospel,  and  Paul  contrastmg  the 
the  two,  says,  "  the  law  had  no  glory  in  this  respect  by 
reason  of  the  glory  that  excelleth."  Again  the  question 
recurs,  why  may  we  not  approach  Elijah's  God  with  the 
.same  success  that  he  did  ?  To  this  question  there  can 
be  bat  one  answer,  and  that  is  this  ;  unbelief  and  sin 
alone  prevent  us  from  enjoying  all  the  divine  power  and 
hoiiaess  that  the  worshippers  of  God  enjoyed  in  any  age 
of  tiia  world. 

The  following  passage  is  freqiieiitly  quoted  to  provCj 
?hat  God  designed  miracles  to  cease  in  the  church, 
**  Whether  there  be  prophecies,  they  shall  fail ;  whether 
there  be  tongues,  they  shall  cease ;  whether  there  be 
knowledge  It  shall  vanish  away."  But  by  attention  to 
the  next  verses,  you  can  easily  see  that  the  time,  in 
v.'hich  these  gifts  were  to  cease,  was  to  be  when  the 
saints  should  arrive  in  heaven;  hence  Paul  says,  "  for 
v/e  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in  part.  But  when 
♦hat  which  is  perfect  is  come,  then  that  which  is  in  part 
shall  be  done  away.  When  I  was  a  child,  I  spake  as  a 
child,  I  thought  as  a  child  ;  but  when  I  became  a  rnanj 
I  put  away  childish  things.  For  now  we  see  through  a 
glass  darkly  ;  but  then  face  to  face  ;  now  I  know  in  part ; 
but  then  shall  I  know  even  as  also  I  am  known."  1  Cor, 
xii.  8 — 12.  If  we  suppose  Paul  was  here  contrasting 
the  church,  such  as  it  then  was  with  the  church  trium- 
phant, the  whole  passage  is  natural  and  plain  ;  but  if  we 
suppose  he  was  comparing  it,  as  it  then  was  in  posses- 
sion of  all  the  miraculous  gifts,  with  any  state  it  has  ex- 
perienced since  it  was  stripped  of  those  gifts,  common 
sense  revolts  at  the  contrast,  and  the  whole  passage  ap- 
l^ears  a  (is^ie  of  falsehood.  Can  any  church  |i  the 
^9 


odB  ANCIENT    OHDEH- 

present  day  draw  such  a  comparison  between  iiieni-^ 
selves  and  the  primitive  church  i  Can  we  say,  the  apos- 
tolical  church  knew  m  part  and  prophecied  in  part,  but 
we  having  attained  to  complete  perfection,  have  no  use 
for  their  partial  knowledge,  and  thereiore  partial  know- 
ledge is  done  away.  Can  we  say  the  apostolic  church 
"<vas  a  mere  child,  spake  as  a  child,  and  thought  as  a 
child,  but  we  having  grown  to  the  &taiure  of  a  man  in 
Christ  have  put  auay  the  childish  things  of  the  apostolic 
age  ?  Can  we  say  that  they  saw  through  a  glass  darkly^ 
but  that  we  now  see  face  to  face,  that  they  then  only 
knew  in  part,  but  now  we  know  even  as  also  we  are 
known  1  The  glass  through  which  they  saw  darkly,  was 
no  doubt  the  gospel  ;  but  can  we  now  say,  we  see  the 
Lord  face  to  lace,  and  have  n<»  need  of  the  gospel  1 

There  is  not  a  text  in  the  Bible  that  says  God  in- 
tended to  take  those  spiritual  gifts  from  the  church.    On 
the  contrary  that  book  exhorts  us  to  "  covet  earnestly 
the  best  gifts."     To,  "  covet  to  prophesy,  and  forbid 
not  to  speak  with  tongm-s."     To  "  follow  after  charity, 
and  desire  spiritual  gifts,  but  rather  that  ye  may  pro- 
phesy."    1  Cor.  xii.   31.     Chap.  xiv.   1.39.     Would 
God  exhort  us  to  follow  after,  covet,  and  earnestly  seek 
these  gifts,  if  he  did  not  intend  them  for  us  ?  James 
says,  "If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God^ 
who  giveth  to  all  men  liberally,  and  upbraideth  not,  and 
it  shall  be  given  him."     If  ye  then  bemg  evil  know  how 
to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more 
shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them 
that  ask  him  V^  If  God  allows  no  person  to  be  Divinely 
inspired  with  wisdom,  nor  to  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  m 
the  present  day,  why  do  James  and  Jesus  Christ  exhort 
US  to  ask  God  for  these  inestimable  blessings  ?  Woukl 
the  blessed  Jesus  hold  out  a  false  hope  to  his  people  ? 
To  say  these  texts  were  confined  to  people  in  the  apos- 
tles' days,  and  are  net  applicable  to  us  in  the  present 
day,  would  be  the  same  as  to  say,  there  can  be  no 
Christians  in  the  present  day,  because  if  we  do  not  fol- 
low after  charity,  seek  wisdom  of  God,  and  pray  to  him 
f  jr  Ms  Holy  Spirit,  we  certainly  cannot  be  Christians  : 
then  so  sure  as  it  is  our  privilege  to  be  Christians  in  the 
pr'e^Ot  day,  just  so  sure  it  is  our  privilege  to  ?-njoy  a 


AT^CIEXT    ORDER.  33^ 

'dvine  inspiration  and  spiritual  gifts.  The  two  privileges 
must  stand  or  fall  together,  the  same  scriptures  promise 
^nd  support  both. 

I  will  now  try  to  answer  such  objections  as  are  most 
commonly  brought  against  a  restoration  of  the  ancient 
order  of  things. 

Objection  I.  JSIirachs  are  not  necessanj  in  the 'pre- 
sent day  ;  they  were  only  wrought  to  confirm  the  gospel, 
ixnd  as  soon  as  that  was  effected,  their  use  ivas  at  an  end. 

Answer.  If  mu*acles,  and  the  inspu-ation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  were  necessary  to  confirm  the  gospel 
among  the  Heathen  in  the  apostles'  days,  they  are  ne- 
cessary to  confirm  it  among  them  in  the  present  day ; 
because  it  is  well  known,  that  at  least  tv.o  thirds  of 
mankind  are  still  under  Heaihenirfm.  It  appears  to  me 
Impossible,  that  partyisni  can  be  destroyed,  prejudice 
and  persecution  exterminated,  slavery  abolished,  wars 
done  away,  and  th  ;  Jev/s,  Mahometans,  and  Pagans, 
converted  to  the  gospel,  without  divine  inspiration  and 
the  gift  of  miracles.  There  are  as  many  evil  spirits  to 
dispossess,  and  as  many  sick  peopk^  who  need  healing 
in  the  present  day,  as  there  were  in  the  days  of  the 
ap 'Sties.  As  we  have  the  same  spiritual  enemies  to 
combat  that  they  had,  we  need  the  same  spiritual  aid, 
that  they  needed.  And  as  the  world  labors  under  the 
same  moral  diseases  nov/  that  it  then  did,  the  same 
remedies  are  necessary  to  remove  them.  Professors 
of  Christianity  at  present  are  but  poorly  qualified  to 
Christianize  the  world.  The  primitive  church  in  pos- 
session of  miracles  and  divine  inspiration,  did  more  to- 
wards evangelizing  mankind  in  two  centuries,  than  the 
church  has  done  withoui  these  gifts  in  sixteen. 

Objection  2.  Jf  these  miracles  were  contiuued,  they 
ivould  become  so  common  that  they  u'ou-d  lose  their  use. 

Answer.  We  might  as  well  say,  that  if  we  continue 
the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  they  will  become  so  com- 
mon, that  they  will  l:'~e  their  use.  To  say  that  a  con- 
tinual inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  enlightening  the 
minds,  and  graciousK  affecting  the  hearts  of  Christians, 
«voiild  render  such  inspiration  useless,  would  be  as  ah- 


340 


a2scie:^t  order. 


surd  as  to  say,  that  a  continuation  of  the  sun  shinir/i' 
daily  on  the  earth,  would  render  him  useless  to  the 
world.  It  is  as  useful  to  a  sinner  to  be  regenerated,  or 
to  a  sick  person  to  be  healed  now,  as  it  was  at  any  for- 
mer age  of  the  world.  If  miracles  were  frequently 
wrought  in  the  present  day,  and  that  by  none  but  Christ- 
ians, it  would,  no  doubt,  establish  the  public  mind  in 
the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  go  far  towards  destroying 
partyism. 

From  the  days  of  Abraham  till  a  short  time  before 
the  coming  of  Christ,  the  Jews  had  their  divinely  in- 
spired prophets,  prophetesses, *and  priests,  who  foretold 
futiire  events  and  wrought  miracles.  Some  of  these 
prophets  were  seers,  who  could  see  into  the  spiritual 
world,  and  converse  with  spiiits,  which  i.^  probably  the 
gift  Paul  alludes  to,  when  he  speaks  oi  discerning 
spirits.  And  from  the  history  of  the  Jews,  we  find 
their  days  of  inspiration  and  ri  iracles  were  always  their 
best  days. 

If  God  does  not  allow  any  of  the  spnitual  gifts  t© 
his  church  in  the  present  day,  he  does  not  admit  his 
w^orshippers  under  the  gospel  to  as  great  an  intimacy 
with  himself,  nor  afford  them  so  much  of  his  spirit,  as  he 
did  those  under  the  law.  If  this  be  so,  how  can  it  be 
said  of  the  gospel,  that  it  excels  the  law  in  glory  1  The 
Christian  church  at  present  has  less  and  fewer  displays 
of  divine  glory  and  power,  and  m<  re  partvism  than  the 
Jews  had  in  the  days  of  their  prophets,  but  hardly  as 
much  piety. 

Ohjp.ciion  2.  If  you  he  correct,  there  are  no  true 
Christian  riiinisiers,  nor  true  believers  in  the  world,  6e* 
cause  there  are  none  divinely  inspired  in  the  present 
day. 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  but  there  are  hundreds  ot 
true  Christian  preacliers  in  the  present  day,  who  have 
fceen  called,  and  are  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
preach  the  gospel.  Many  of  them  have  entered  apos- 
tolic ground,  prayed  to  God  for,  and  from  him  received 
a  divine  inspiration,  wliich  enabled  them  to  speak  with 
wisdom  and  power,  more  than  their  own  :  and  while 
they  have  been  in  the  preciucts  of  primitive  Christia^iity, 


AXCiEXT    ORDER.  341 

tiiey  have  not  only  experienced  the  divine  light  and  su- 
per-human power  themselves,  hut  have  frequently  been 
the  means  of  conveying  the  same  to  their  hearers. 

Since  the  revival  commenced  in  the  beginning  of  thi^ 
century,  there  have  been,  under  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel,  many  miraculous  displays  of  supernatural  power 
on  congregations  and  individuals.  V»e  have  seen  hun- 
dreds struck  down,  and  lay  under  the  great  power  of 
God,  unable  to  move  hand  or  foot,  and  to  all  human  ap- 
pearance breathless  for  several  hours,  and  then  rise 
praising  God,  and  speaking  widi  a  wisdom  and  power, 
of  which  they  were  no  more  capable  the  day  betxjre. 
than  the  most  illiterate  man  is  capable  of  delivering  a 
well  ordered  discourse  on  Astronomy.  The  JerJiS  is  a 
great  miracle  :  I  have  seen  people  jerked  by  an  invisi- 
ble power  with  such  velocity,  that  if  it  had  been  done  by 
any  external  force,  it  would  have  killed  them  in  a  minute, 
and  still  they  received  no  injury. 

Besides  all  this,  thore  have  been  in  the  bounds  of 
my  acquaintance  many  miraculous  cures  performed  in 
answer  to  prayer.  I  have  been  acquainted  with  several 
of  the  people  who  were  healed,  conversed  on  the  sub- 
ject with  the  persons  who  were  present  at  the  time  : 
and  some  of  these  cures  I  have  seen  myself  I  as 
lirmly  believe  that  Elder  David  Haggard  had  the  gift  of 
healing,  as  that  the  apostles  had.  He  has  fallen  asleep, 
but  there  are  many  alive  who  saw  him  perform  cures, 
and  what  I  saw  myself  puts  the  matter  beyond  doubt 
with  me.  I  state  thes.e  facts  in  honor  to  God,  who,  in 
every  age  of  the  world,  has  shown  a  willingness  to  bles^ 
his  creatures  in  proportion  to  their  faith  and  obedience. 
Those  who  oppose  an  apostolical  ministry,  frequently 
challenge  us  to  confirm  our  special  call  by  miracles. — 
To  this  I  answer,  that  every  sermon  and  exhortation 
delivered  in  the  power  of  the  spirit  is  itself  a  miracle, 
because  it  is  superhuman  ;  the  man  could  not  have  done 
it  of  himself;  besides,  these  discourses  frequently  have 
miraculous  effects:  they  are  often  the  means  of  making 
those  do  good  who  had'  been  long  accustomed  to  do 
evil,  which  is  as  hard  as  for  an  Ethiopian  to  change  bis 
skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots.     Jer.  xiii.  23. 

Mv  object  is  to  establish  my  brethren  in  the  rellglcui 
2.9.^ 


342,  AXCIENT    ORPEE. 

they  have  experienced,  and  exhort  them  to  press  for- 
ward for  more  of  the  same.  All  that  is  necessary  to 
retrieve  primitive  Christianity,  is,  enough  of  the  same 
spirit  we  have  received. 

I  also  think  Christ  has  a  true  chm-ch  on  earth,  but  its 
members  are  scattered  among  the  various  denomina- 
tions, and  are  all  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of 
MYSTERY  BABYLON,  and  her  daughters  ;  but 
now  there  is  a  "Voice  heard  from  heaven,  saying  come 
out  of  her  my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her 
sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues."  Rev. 
sviii.  4.  0,  v.here  is  the  Christian  that  will  rebel  against 
this  kind  and  powerful  voice?  Surely  the  lovers  of 
Zion,  who  have  long  wept  by  the  rivers  Babylon  with 
their  harps  on  the  willows,  would  now  rejoice  to  learn 
the  way  that  leads  from  that  land  of  bondage.  To  such 
inquiring  souls,  I  will  venture  to  give  a  little  advice. 
The  first  word  of  the  inscription  on  Babyloh's  forehead 
is  MYSTERY;  therefore  let  us  cease  to  contend  for?n?/.s- 
feries,  and  spend  the  remainder  of  our  days  in  practis- 
ing the  plain  precepts  of  the  go?;pel.  I  think  if  all 
Christians  would  do  this,  contention  about  doctrine 
would  soon  come  to  an  end.  In  Babylon  v.as  found 
slaves  and  souls  of  men :  then  cease  from  enslaving  }our 
fellow-creatures.  Remember  the  dealers  in  human 
flesh,  who  continually  oppress  their  fellow-creatures  in 
both  soul  and  body,  must  themselves  continue  in  spirit- 
ual bf)ndage.  ^'Li  her  was  fGund  the  blood  of  Saints  ;■' 
let  this  caution  us  against  prejudice  and  party  ism,  be- 
cause that  spirit  led  her  to  murder  Christians.  By  con- 
formity to  the  spirit  of  the  world,  joining  church  and 
state  together,  getting  her  religion  established  by  law^  • 
and  framing  the  government  of  the  church  after  that  of 
'Pagan  Rome,  she  commiiiedfornicaiion  uith  the  Kings 
of  the  earth.  Therefore  let  us  renounce  her  jurisdic- 
tion, guard  against  the  spirit  of  the  world,  make  no  at-. 
tempt  to  have  our  meeting-houses  incorporated,  nor  the 
snpport  of  our  ministers  collected  by  law,  and  be  carefU 
not  to  frame  the  government  of  the  church  after  that  of 
the  state,  but  continually  aim  at,  and  pray  to  God  for  a 
restoration  of  the  ancient  order^  laid  down  in  the  New 
Testament.     Babylon  xuas  dressed  in  red,  y\UQh  shows 


A5CIENT   ORLCEt  34^ 

jshe  was  in  the  spirit  of  war,  but  let  us  put  away  that 
spirit  from  among  us,  and  follow  after  peace  with  all 
men,  and  hohne.-s,  without  which  none  can  see  the 
Lord.  The  inhtioitants  of  the  earth  have  been  made 
drunk  with  the  wine  of  her  fornication,  and  she  herself 
is  drunk  with  the  blood  of  saints.  Thirsting  for  the 
blood  of  saints,  and  intoxicated  with  her  success  in 
^shedding  it,  she  has  infused  the  same  spirit  into  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world,  by  which  they  have  been  so  be- 
wildered as  to  think  all  temporal  power  is  derived  from 
the  Pope,  and  that  it  was  their  duty  to  butcher  thou- 
sands of  their  best  subjects  to  support  Babylonish 
mysteries.  In  her  drunkenness  she  has  mistaken  water 
baptism  for  regeneration,  and  a  little  bread  and  wine, 
that  would  not  weigh  an  ounce,  for  the  whole  real  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ :  she  has  conceited  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  as  old  as  his  Father,  and  that  he  is  the 
very  uncreated,  self- existent  God,  thus  making  him  to 
be  both  the  Father  and  Son  of  himself.  In  her  drunken 
freaks,  she  has  asserted  that  although  Jesus  Christ  was 
the  setf-exisfent  God,  yet  God  killed  him  in  the  room  of 
sinners  ;  thus  declaring  in  the  face  of  common  sense,, 
that  God  poured  out  his  wrath  on  God,  because  he  was 
angry  with  the  devil  and  sinners  :  and  now,  like  other 
drunkards,  elated  with  her  own  folly,  she  condemns 
every  man  for  a  heretic  or  a  fool,  that  dares  to  contra- 
dict her. 

"  But  let  us  come  out  of  her  spirit  and  practices  too.. 
The  track  of  our  Saviour  keep  constant  in  view, 
'I'he  pure  Testimony  will  bring  us  safe  through;'' 


^4  OF    DEALING    IN    ARDENT    SPIRIT*. 

On  making  and  selling  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Making,  or  selling  intoxicating  liquors,  is  contrary  id 
the  will  of  God,  because,  being  not  nutritious,  they  will 
not  support  human  life,  of  course  all  the  labor  spent  on 
them  is  lost,  and  it  cannot  be  God's  will  that  we  should 
waste  our  time.  God  wills  that  every  man  should  ibl- 
low  some  business  useful  to  himself,  and  calculated  to 
pnjmote  the  happiness  of  his  fellow  creatures.  But 
those  who  make  and  sell  ardent  spirits  are  worse  than 
idle  :  they  live  by  destroying  the  blessings  of  God. 

By  distilling  grain,  fruit,  molasses,  &c.  they  destroy 
of  these  blessings  to  the  amount  of  many  millions  oi" 
dollars  every  year.  If  the  people  in  the  United  States 
spend  in  ardent  spirits  only  a  half  a  dollar  for  each  per- 
son in  a  year,  it  will  amount  to  more  than  five  millions 
of  dollars  per  annum.  It  cannot  be  the  will  of  God  that 
so  much  wealth  should  l.e  wasted.  This  sum  appro- 
priated annually  to  internal  improvements  and  literature, 
would  make  our  country  almost  a  Paradise,  but  being 
applied  to  intemperance,  it  has  a  deleterious  effect,  and 
rather  tends  to  convert  the  country  into  a  Sodom. 

Christians  should  live  honestly,  but  those  who  sell 
spirituous  liquors  live  by  cheating  their  neighbors.  They 
designedly  obtain  money  for  that  which  is  of  no  value. 
Let  no  one  say  intoxicating  spirits  are  useful,  every 
person  of  sense  knows  they  are  not.  The  natives  of 
this  continent  are  healthier  and  happier  without  ardent 
spirits  than  v.ith  them  ;  and  the  Turks,  Arabs  and  Hin- 
doos, who  never  use  them,  are  healthier,  stronger,  and 
live  longer  than  those  nations  that  drink  them.  The 
man  who  sells  spirituous  liquors,  poisons  his  fellow- 
creatures  for  the  sake  of  money.  Intoxicating  liquors 
are  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  poison  :  they  des- 
troy the  health,  derange  the  minds,  and  ruin  the  morals 
of  the  wretches  who  drink  them.  And  is  it  possible 
that  a  Christian  will  poison  his  neighbors  for  the  sake 
of  money?  The  willingness  of  fools  to  buy  the  poison 
cannot  in  the  least  extenuate  the  crime  of  selling  it  to 
them.  What  should  we  think  of  a  doctor  who  would 
sell  poison  when  he  knew  it  would  ruin  the  persons  that 
bought  it  ?  In  the  United  States  alone,  more  than  t\yo 


ON  ©EALING    IN   ARDENX   SPIRITS.  345 

iljousand,  perhaps  ten  thousand  people  lose  their  lives 
every  year  by  drinking  ardent  spirits.  If  one  man 
should  kill  so  many,  he  would  be  considered  a  great 
murderer,  but  every  luan  of  common  sense  knows  that 
if  ten,  or  ten  thousand  unite  in  the  murder,  they  are  all 
guilty.  The  dealers  in  ardent  spirits  are  chargeable 
with  all  the  deaths  that  are  occasioned  by  intemperance, 
because,  if  there  were  no  inflammatory  spirits  made  nor 
sold,  no  person  would  get  drunk. 

He  who  makes  a  man  drunk,  is  the  cause  of  every 
excess  which  that  drunkenness  leads  him  to  commit. 
He  that  makes  his  neighbor  drunk  turns  loose  a  mad- 
man to  disturb  the  peace  of  society  ;  he  does  worse,  he 
turns  a  civil  citizen  into  a  madman. 

Drunkenness  opens  the  door  to  every  vice.  Can  a 
Christian  knowingly  follow  an  employment  in  which  he 
can  only  succeed  by  multiplymg  crimes,  and  increasing 
the  number  of  transgressors  m  the  land?  Six  cents 
worth  of  spirits  will  make  a  man  drunk  :  and  is  it  possi- 
ble that  for  the  pitif  il  bribe  of  six  cents,  a  Christian  will 
promote  rebellion  against  his  Master,  and  assist  in  des- 
troying the  souls  for  whom  Christ  died  ?  That  man  can 
have  but  little  regard  for  the  law  of  God,  who  would 
have  it  broke  for  six  cents. 

Every  vender  of  ardent  spirits  promotes  swearing, 
lying,  cheating,  stealing,  whoring,  gambhng,  quarrel- 
ing, fighting,  and  murdering  ;  because,  it  is  well  known 
that  all  these  abominations  are  occasioned  by  drunken- 
ness. They  who  sell  spirits  by  large  quantities,  are  as 
guilty  as  the  retailers,  because  they  all  know  that  intem- 
perance creates  the  market.  Certainly  no  Christian 
will  knowingly  promote  intemperance  for  the  sake  of 
money.  All  the  dealers  in  ardent  spirits  from  the  dis- 
tiller down  to  the  retailer,  do  intentionally  promote 
drunkenness,  and  every  crime  which  it  leads  to,  for  the 
3iike  of  money. 

Some  of  the  best  physicians  have  said  that  distilled 
,-pirits  are  not  good  for  any  thing,  and  their  warmest  ad- 
vocates  affirm  that  they  are  only  useful  as  medicine ; 
ratsbane,  and  calomel  may  be  good  for  medicine,  but 
that  will  not  justify  any  person  in  giving  them  out  so  ?3 
t9  destroy  liis  feIlow=creatures. 


^46'  ON    DEALING    IN    ARDENT   SPIRITS." 

There  is  much  talk  in  the  world  about  damnable  he- 
resies, but  I  think  there  are  no  damnable  heresies  except 
those  which  lead  to  damnable  practices.  A  belief  that 
it  is  right  to  make  and  .sell  inioxicating  liquors,  leads  to 
the  practice,  and  the  practice  leads  to  almost  every 
crime  forbidden  in  the  scriptures.  I  therefore  conclude 
that  every  distiller  of  ardent  spirits,  and  every  person  who 
makes  a  business  of  selung  the;ii  either  by  wholesale, 
or  retail,  is  in  practice  an  enemy  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
ought  to  be  excommunicated  from  the  Christian  church. 
If  there  be  any  so  very  ignorant  a.-;  to  think  it  is  no  harm 
to  keep  distilleries  or  tippling  shops,  they  should  be  in- 
structed on  the  subject,  and  if  they  will  persist,  they 
have  no  business  m  the  church.  We  cannot  prosper 
while  we  keep  thieves  and  Miiuderers  in  ourcommunion. 
Every  house  for  retailing  ardent  -pirits  is  a  hot-bed  of 
iniquity,  and  every  wholesale  dealer  in  those  spirits  is 
an  upholder  of  br  thels  a  d  gambling  houses.  If  there 
were  no  inflammatory  spirits  m  America,  it  is  believed 
there  would  be  few  -uch  houses  kept,  and  if  there  should 
be  any  kept  without  imflajumatory  spirits,  they  certainly 
would  be  far  less  injurious  to  the  country  than  they  now 
are. 

Let  ev^ery  instigator  of  drunkenness  think  of  this 
scripture,  "  Woe  unto  him  that  giveth  his  neighbor 
drink,  that  puttest  thy  bottle  to  him,  and  makest  him 
drunken."  Hab.  ii.  15.  "All  the  law  is  fulfilled  in 
one  word,  even  in  this,  thou  shait  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself."  Gal.  v.  14.  But  it  is  plain  that  they  who 
cheat  and  poison  their  neio^hbors  for  the  sake  of  money, 
cannot  love  nor  pray  for  them.  I  believe  it  is  pretty 
well  known  that  distillers  and  retailers  of  spirituous  li- 
quors do  not  pray  much  for  themselves,  nor  any  body 
else.  Good  people  may  differ  from  m.e  about  the  hein- 
ousness  of  this  crime,  but  I  insist  that  if  it  is  a  crime  at 
all,  it  should  not  oe  allowed  in  the  church.  Surely  the 
gospel  gives  no  liberty  to  sin.  A  Christian  is  a  follower 
of  Christ  who  always  went  aitout  doing  good,  but  the 
vender  of  inflammatory  spirits  spends  all  his  days  in 
doing  harm. 

The  most  temperate  and  pious  do  not  escape  all  the 
evils  of  drunlienness.    Those  evils  assail  them  thi-ough 


ON   DEALING    IN    ARDENT    SPIRITS. 


34*r 


tiieii  drunken  friends  and  neighbors.  Thus  intemper- 
ance is  an  enemy  to  the  »\hole  human  family  :  its  evils 
pervade  all  ranks,  and  enter  all  the  walks  of  life,  im- 
bittering  the  cup,  and  plantmg  thorns  in  the  path  of 
every  individual.  While  the  aged  drunkard  is  bending 
under  the  weight  of  guilt  and  disease  which  he  has 
brought  on  himself  by  untemperance,  his  faithful  wife 
is  dying  of  a  broken  heart,  and  ins  mnocent  children 
are  reduced  to  poverty  and  wretchedness  by  the  same 
means. 

Intemperance  fills  the  prisons,  crowds  the  almS' 
houses,  takes  thousands  to  the  gallows,  and  milUons  to 
hell.  It  is  well  known,  that  makmg  and  sellmg  ardent 
spirits  is  the  real  cause  of  all  these  evils.  I  now  ask,  is  i% 
possible  that  a  christian  will  knowingly  chose,  and  fol- 
low an  employment  that  is  the  cause  of  so  much  sin 
and  misery  ? 

As  christians  have  long  deplored  this  evil,  I  will  now 
propose  a  plan  to  check  its  ravages.     The  plan  is  this, 
let  us  put  away  disiilled  spirit-   from  among  us  alto- 
gether; let  all  professors  of  rehgion  do  like  the  Quakers, 
neither  make,  sell,  nor  use  them.      Surely,  Christians 
should  be  as  temperate  as  Turks  and  Arabs.       At  any 
rate  let  us  no  longer  suffer  our  members  to  keep  still- 
houses  and  tippling-shops.     If  all  protessed  christians 
had  put  away  slavery  and  distilled  spirits  at  the  time 
the  Quakers  did,  in  all  probability  these   evils  would 
have  been  by  this  time  nearly,if  not  quite, banished  from 
Christendom.     Among  the  Jews,  if  any  one  was  con- 
victed of  enticing  others  to  idolatry,  he  was   stoned  to 
death,  but  we  keep  people  in  our  church  who  make 
their  living  by  enticing  their  fellow-creatures  to  sin.     If 
Christ  called  the  speculators,  who  sold  and  bought,  and 
changed  money  in  the  Temple,  a  den  of  thieves,  and  cast 
them  out,  surely  these  promoters  of  wickedness  should 
not  be  allowed  to  stay  in  the  church.       I  greatly  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  christians  to   the  subject.     T 
want  to  see  it  made  a  theme  for  the  pulpit,  a  question  in 
church  meeting,  and  a  subject  of  discussion  in.  con- 
ference. 


wm^m^^ 


Page. 
The  Preface-.  3 


PART  1. 

Thoughts  on  Natural  Theology,  9 

PART  11, 

The  Truth  of  Revelation,  20 

Riconsistency  of  Deists,  2S 


PART    m.—OF    TRINITY. 

The  Unity  of  God,  34 

The  Doctrine  of  Trinity  Examined,  39 
Of  John  V.  7.    For  there  are  three  that  bear  record 

in  heaven,  &c.  55 

Of  the  Hebrew  £/o/i?//],  59 


PART    lY.— OF    CHRIST. 

That  Christ  is  a  distinct  Being  from  God,  and  that 

his  power  is  derived  from  the  Father  ?o 

Ancient  Opinions  of  Christ,  VS 

"Passages  of  Scripture  that  prove  the  Sob  is  not  so 

great  as  his  Father,  84 

Argum<fTit5  against  the  above  Doctrine  coasider^cK  95' 


INDEX. 

Chribt  being  called  God  is  no  proof  that  he  is  the 

Supreme  Being,  96 

Of  Christ  being  called  the  Lord's  fellow.    Zech. 

xiii.  7.  9S 

The  same  attributes   ascribed  to  Christ  and  his 

Father,  1 04 

The  same  works  being  ascribed  to  Christ  and  his 

Father  is  no  proof  that  he  is  the  Supreme  God,   105 
Of  Christ  being  equal  with  God.  107 

Christ  the  Judge  of  the  world,  113 

Passages,  of  Scripture  that  have  been  brought  to 

prove  Christ  is  the  Supreme  God  considered,   114 
Of  worshipping  Christ  as  a  dependant  Being,  123 

JVisdom,  mentioned  in  the  Sth  chapter  of  Proverbs 

is  not  Christ,  12S 

On  the  Origin  and  Substance  of  Christ,  131 

Christ  mentioned  in  Scripture  under  the  character 

of  an  Angel,  14Q 

Of  Michael  the  Archangel,  149- 

The  personal,  or  real  Existence  of  God,  156. 

Objections  against  the  personal  Existence  of  God 

answered,  163 


PART    v. OF    THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

To  prove  that  the  Holy  Sjjirit  is  not  a  distinct  per- 
son from  God,  171 
The  Holy  Spirit  a  Witness,  179- 
Personal  Pronouns  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  181 


PART    YI. ATONEMENT. 

The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  1S7 

Of  Christ  Fulfilling  the  Law,  196 

The  Doctrine  of  Surety  Rightconsnefs  crn.sid€red,2Cf 


IXDEX.      ' 

Paih 
t  Imputed  Righteousness,  218 

Of  Imputing  Sin  to  Christ,  22S 

Of  Christ  bearing  the  ^Trath  of  God,  232 

The  Doctrine  of  Purchased  Grace,  236 

Of  Christ  making  satisfaction  to  Divine  Justice 

for  Sinners,  340 
Evidences  in  favor  of  Surety  Righteousness,  &c. 

considered,  245 

Of  the  Jewish  Sacrifices,  2o2- 
Of  Christ  paying  the  debts  of  his  Church  in  the 

sense  that  a  husband  pays  the  debts  contracted 

by  his  wife,  25G 

Of  Christ  being  made  a  Curse  for  us,  262 

Of  the  Purchase  made  by  Christ,  263 

Of  Christ  treading  the  wine-press  of  God's  Wrath,  269 

Renunciation  of  Copy  Right,  273. 


PART    YIL— OF    FAITH. 

Remarks  on  Faith,  275- 

Regeneration  by  the  Spirit  through  Faith-,  ^  279 

PART  YIIL— OF  ELECTION,  ; 

To  show  who  the  Elect  are,  292 

To  show  when  and  hov/  God's  people  are  elected,  295 

Of  Foreknowledge  and  Decree,  301 

Of  Predestination,  30^ 

or  Esau  and  Jacob,  310 
The  persons  on  whom  God  will  have  mercy,  and 

on  ^  horn  he  will  harden,  315 

Of  ]y  mes  written  in  the  Lamb's  Book  of  Life,  316 

Of  t   3  Potter  and  the  Clay,  320 

Of  (   od Creating  Evil,  326. 

Thr  Application.  32?" 


PART  1%. 

Pk  Restoration  of  the  Ancient-  Order  of  T}uii|s,       8Bl 
Objections  ©fa  Restoration  of  the  Ancient  ©r^ejj 

•f  Things  Ans^vered,  330 

Of  Mciklng  and  Selling  Int.oxipatmg  Liquors?.*         3i54 


